Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  May 25, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT

12:00 pm
even though this country has the enormous debt that it has. the dollar is still viewed as really the safe haven around the world, so as we see all of although these fluctuations and headlines pertaining to oil, pertaining to gold and commodities as well as the eurozone happenings, we are seeing the dollar strengthened. ..
12:01 pm
who want to buy it and hold stocks for a year or two or longer. when will be be able to create atmosphere for stock investors, not a stock trader to come into the market to prepare the market to a higher level? i've been a fan since 2000 the the best thing i can say is read the 10-k. they have all the information. i was on the wrong side. i turned my life around but the people -- they see me and invest in the stock market and now they are reaping the benefits they heard of the stock market. again, i would like your honest, forthright -- i listen to you every day. keep up the good work. goodbye. >> guest: thank you so much. i think you hit on probably the
12:02 pm
most important issue that we're all grappling with, and that is trust and confidence. your question was, when will this market return to stability and actually encourage retail investors to come back into the market. the fact is the retail investor has been scared out of the market, beginning with the flash crash a couple years ago when the market dropped precipitously in a very short period of time, a couple of seconds. to things like to jpmorgan laws were people are confused as far as whether not there impacted, to the facebook ipo which we saw take place this week. the retail investor feels jet out of this market, feels like they're not getting a fair share. and i think until we actually see trust and confidence return, to these markets is going to be very tough to come back in with real confidence that, in fact, the market is not sort of rigged against them. and that's really what the sec and the agencies in washington overseeing the markets are
12:03 pm
grappling with. they need to on the one hand be the right policemen, to send messages out that when there is wrongdoing, there will be consequences, and they are watching things and overseeing and at the ready. and on the other hand ensure that the rules are in place and clear enough for people to understand that, in fact, it is a fair market and it's a fair market for the regional investor as well as the big guy or gal out there, the investor. we are waiting for the. i think when you see a botched up ipo, unicom you didn't get an execution statement on your shares of facebook this week into 2:00 in the afternoon the day the company goes public, and the stock didn't open until 11:30 a.m., you're scratching your head and say what is going on to? why don't feel like i'm not getting a fair share. this is a huge issue for the securities and exchange commission. the ftc is trying to change
12:04 pm
market structure to ensure that things like the flash crash on may sticks doesn't repeat it doesn't happen again. but at this point we haven't really seen enough evidence that, in fact, the market has changed enough, and that the rulemaking is in place well enough to ensure that people have the confidence to return. that's why you are seeing volume so low. you see people put money under the mattress in many cases, in money market funds because they are more interested in protecting their money than getting any kind of return because you are afraid and they're just uncertain about the market structure is made maria bartiromo, next riverside, ohio. mary is a democrat. >> caller: thank you so much. you helped me understand the economy and it's definitely not my strength. but i watched the bailout hearings, and, in 2008, and i learned a lot. but can you tell us, i mean, i
12:05 pm
understand the big objection with republican, independent, and the like. many people don't have an objection to banks privatizing the profits, but where their losses are socialized that there's a real problem when taxpayers end up having, being forced to bail them out. so could you, and i wish c-span and the "washington journal" has already done a program on this but i haven't seen it, where they specifically go through the banks, what they borrowed at what interest rate, and specifically how much each bank has paid the fed back. and again, at what interest rate. and here's the other thing that i don't get. you talked about trust and confidence. like professor william black, i've seen him on several programs and followed him quite a bit, in regard to lack of prosecution of those who knowingly brought the u.s.
12:06 pm
economy, or really committed crimes during this process, he talked about during the savings and loan scandal that i think he said there were 10,000 prosecutorial referrals, and 1000 people prosecuted. and then this guy, charles ferguson, who wrote predator nation, a "washington journal" has him on, he has talked also about the lack of prosecution -- >> host: mary, how much the banks a payback on a government bailout and also prosecution, criminal indictments people who may have been involved in wrongdoing in the 2008 meltdown. >> guest: i think for starters on how much the banks to pay back. that's all public information. that's a out there. most of the banks to pay back the money and the government has made money on most of those transactions. we are still waiting for the closure of the aig situation. we know that the government is
12:07 pm
selling its data and in its ownership there at some point, but it has yet to be concluded. so we're sort of in the middle of the. entrance of a large money center banks in much of the money has been paid back or has begun to be payback and there is a sketch a place. all the information is public information so you can actually get that information. in terms of the second question, the second question is dealing with what, i'm sorry? tremblant on prosecution. >> guest: this is one of the big issues because the problem is, andrew cuomo actually made a comment to me a couple years ago when he said to me, maria, people will go back into the water when they know the shark is dead. and i thought that was so apropos for what really happened on wall street. because people will return to the market when they know that the coast is clear, when they know that those people who actually created the problem have been justified, have been,
12:08 pm
you know, and the consequence. and we haven't really seen a significant number of prosecutions. there are a handful of cases in terms of mortgages in some corners of financial services, but in terms of big fish we really haven't seen prosecutions. we really haven't seen any heads roll, if you will. part of the reason for that is it's very difficult to prove fraud over stupidity. stupidity is not a crime, and so it has been difficult for the government to actually prove that this person, or whoever we're talking about, leadership at these firms, willingly, knowingly committed fraud. as opposed to making a stupid that on the mortgage market, you know, making a stupid call on housing, et cetera. and so i think this is part of the frustration with the masses. they feel like, look, the roaches came out from under me.
12:09 pm
my house is worth a lot less than it was. my stockport fo for a my 401(k) has been cleaned out, and he was to blame and where is that person? how come, they are saying my wealth disappear and yet no one is being prosecuted for? that's why you still have this sort of division and finger-pointing across the board on the part of main street versus wall street. i think again, what andrew cuomo said, people go back and wonder when they know the shark is dead, holds a lot of value. that's why when you see wrongdoing, the regulators need to get right on it to send messages out that this will not be tolerated. that, in fact, there are guardrails in place, and this will be policed. we are not seeing enough of that. and so people are wondering why, the people who got us into this mess, are not being prosecuted. but again, it's difficult to prove fraud versus stupidity. >> host: talk to you about ceo pay out. joseph tweets, ceos gamble
12:10 pm
money of others. this morning associated press has a big story which is reported about in politico on average ceo pay higher than before the meltdown. this is on playbook this one. profits of big u.s. companies broke records last year and so did pay for ceos.
12:11 pm
>> host: so in the wake of dodd-frank, there were such say on pay, efforts being, sing some shareholder protest at what does the whole issue of ceo pay stand up for this country? >> guest: i think the public has spoken on this issue. when you go to the numbers like you just did, they are simply mind-boggling. and in some cases you're peeling back the onion and looking for the purse and its ugly. i think from my standpoint i believe that we should have pay for performance.
12:12 pm
and if an individual performs well for the company, for shareholders, for employees, for the other constituents, the community, then they should get paid whatever the agreement is. but when you're actually seeing an individual performs poorly, there should be consequences for that. i'm not one who believes that government should be regulating the pay of individuals. we have a system in place. the point is, in many situations, that system has failed. but it was the boards of directors have really not done their fair share of what is needed here, and that is being an independent voice any situation to ensure that things are done fairly. fight for the shareholders, fight for the employees, fight for the constituents. ensure that the executive in charge, the leadership team is being compensated, but being compensated in a practical and
12:13 pm
rational way. some of these numbers are absolutely just mind-boggling, when you list the number of people, one individual is making more than all of those people in government. but again, i think it's really up to the structure that we have in place, boards of directors. but someone has to be policing that those people are doing their job. for a lot of years i think the criticism was that the boards of directors were in the pockets of the ceos, that they which is okay in whatever the ceo wanted, which is why the discussion of should the chairman and the ceo role he split up, or should ahead of the company of both roles, is that too much power. it probably should be split up in most cases, the chairman versus the ceo role. so that your checks and balances in place to ensure that someone, and he teamed him is watching that the ceo is, in fact, performing well if he is to get such lavish perks.
12:14 pm
but in terms of regulating compensation, i think that is, is going too far, frankly. >> host: next is jake, an independent in florida. you are on. >> caller: good morning. listen, this role of the government overseeing wall street doesn't make much sense to me. i mean, it's wall street and k street, center lobbyists to congress with billions of dollars to buy votes. my estimation, u.s. corporations that make billions of dollars profit. pay no tax and get money back. i think and feel they been -- basically they will never change. thank you. >> host: we will leave that as a comment. let's go one to a call from detroit. john, republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to review or comment on
12:15 pm
two things. one is, would you say that, that dodd-frank is an unending, was glass-steagall, that's one. the second one is a little more troubling to me, and that is chris cox as sec chairman, i believe reporting, or is people reporting to congress as they do periodically. i believe under oath clearly misstated the well being of those institutions. if you could comment. and a very good job. you're a wonderful, for the country, for people that view your network. thanks very much. >> guest: thank you so much, john. is it an extension of glass-steagall? i think dodd-frank is trying to go a lot deeper in terms of really getting into the weeds. specific trading and oversight of the various operations of
12:16 pm
these large financial institutions to ensure that there is not risk gone wild and ultimately will impact taxpayers in a broad and significantly. so i wouldn't say that it is a mimic of glass-steagall, but it certainly is getting into the weeds a lot more, to look at things like proprietary trading, to look at things like the oversight of how money is being managed and that these firms are handling their operations that could ultimately be be impacting depositories and impacting taxpayers. in terms of the legislation right now, we are still seeing the rules being written as we speak. which in some ways has created a new level of uncertainty for corporate america. so we are really not seeing decisions being made in terms of
12:17 pm
allocating capital, hiring new people, creating new jobs. because these firms are saying, i can't put limits on the payroll, you know, which includes salaries, health care benefits, for those people without knowing how my business will change, what agencies will be regulating my firm. i was talking to the head of aig, i don't know, about a six month ago and i said to him, are you going to be considered one of these systemically important institutions, sifi, which would create a whole new regular oversight panel watching energy. and he said we don't know. we are not sure because the rules are still being written. so of course if you're in issues, you're going to say well, i'm not sure who i'm actually answering to. i'm not sure how many agencies are overseeing the. i'm not sure if i can be considered systemically important, a systemically
12:18 pm
important financial institution. and so i'm going to hold off with any expanding but i'm going to hold off hiring. i'm going to hold off allocating significant amounts of capital in terms of investment, in r&d, et cetera, until i have a clearer idea of where we are. so we are in disputed right now of waiting for dodd-frank to be, to be implemented at a time when companies are sitting on a record amount of cash they could be putting that money to work in the economy. but they are not because of the sort of uncertainties and unknowns out there. we need to really have the rules clearly stated. we need companies to understand what the rules are in order for them to operate in a stable way and operate in a normal weight in terms of putting money to work. so that's where we are right now, and, unfortunately, this takes time. and you know, these rules are still being written. is extraordinary action that these rules are still being
12:19 pm
written. only 30% of dodd-frank has actually been written and began to be intimate. there's a long way to go, and that's why we're in this uncertain period for companies. >> host: a comment from darrell who was washing -- watching us. i do think it's unusual the u.s. overlooks executive pay for those who have been rescued by the u.s. our next call is from michael. >> caller: a big fan of the show, guys. love both of you guys. i've a couple of questions for ms. bartiromo. why is jamie dimon, the head, ceo of jpmorgan, part of the new york fed if, in fact, he doesn't believe in regulation? number two, why is there a $700 trillion of unregulated derivatives market? and number three, how come the federal reserve land trillions of dollars to wall street without us knowing it? i will hang up and listen to
12:20 pm
comments off the air. thank you thank you firstly, jamie dimon having a seat on your bed, well, he's had a seat on the nuke that for some time, and i don't know necessarily that that's a bad thing. i think in some regard you do want some people on the that are actually engaging in business to offer sort of practical ideas and practical issues pertaining to what's going on in the world. what we said earlier in terms of the sec not having enough people in place that understand the complexities of this market is a real issue. so i'm not uncomfortable with banking executives being on the board of the federal reserve for an open give-and-take between the fed and people are actually managing business. i think that creates an opportunity to talk about practical things and have a business guide say look, this is that this kind of rule making
12:21 pm
will impact my company and other companies. so, you know, i mean, i'm not necessary uncomfortable with him having a seat on the fed board. that's been the case for a long time. even someone like egypt and all is on the board as well running general electric. in some cases that is help for having active managers of businesses to comment and incorporate ideas into the rulemaking landscape. >> host: next as a phone call from pontiac. good morning, you're on for maria bartiromo. >> caller: i've enjoyed it very much over the years on cnbc. i was wanted to i kind of piggybacking on a previous call i guess. i was wondering if you could give a quick definition of what glass-steagall and the uptick rule are? and then tell us if that would make the ftc's job easier and be
12:22 pm
able to preserve our banking system and the market and avoid undue influence of hedge funds, that kind of thing? >> well, glass-steagall is put in place to ensure that banks that are handling deposit money would not be engaging in risky activities, securities business. so getting together a bank, an insurance company and a securities firm was prohibited because of this very reason, not to put that kind of risk, making risky bets in terms of security, not putting depositor money at risk, really looking at things as is, you know, let's ensure that these banks are shaped like utilities to ensure that depositor money is not impacted. unfortunately, as things change and as there have been consolidation, banking
12:23 pm
supermarkets, the argument was made that, in fact, this is a positive to have financial supermarkets where one firm can do so many things because when you have weakness or sort of upset in one part of the firm, a stronger part of the firm will offset the weakness and it is fine. but, of course, in 2008 when we saw the meltdown and we saw the interconnectedness of some of these large institutions, that became up for debate. and now there is a call to go back to the glass-steagall and go back to the idea that, in fact, banks should be banks operating as deposit institutions, and securities, investment banks should be something different. so that's where we are right now in terms of debating whether or not these two things should be separated once again. when you look at a situation like jpmorgan and the $2 billion loss, even though it did not impacted taxpayers, even though it really didn't impact
12:24 pm
shareholders, except to the fact that jpmorgan stock has dropped as a result of it, it is raising this debate once again. and i suspect we will get a heavier reaction to this. we will get a reaction out of the sec and the oversight in washington of the financial services industry as a more regulation. and much better sort of guardrails in place. we will see how this plays out, but that certain was the aim and issued a glass-steagall, but as the market, let's face it, we're talking about a long time and things change. consolidation happened, new products came out, new investors, you know, a new investor class, mobilization, so may things change in this industry to ultimately create this idea that well, maybe we should be doing financial supermarkets until of course the next crisis which occurred, which is bringing up this debate once again. the sec is looking at all of
12:25 pm
this, including changes in market structure, you know, like the uptick rule, like things to avoid the flash crash, to ensure that investors feel like there are guardrails and police in place to actually ensure that investors and depositors who don't want to take that kind of risk that these investment banks take are not impacted. but we don't really have resolution on this yet. we are still looking at her, studying it, and government is trying to make the case that more regulation -- in my opinion, i don't necessarily think more regulation is as effective as better regulation. i was astounded during the 2008 crisis to learn that aig, for example, have 400 regulators. 400 regulators. are you telling me that 400 regulators missed the fact that this from had taken on an enormous amount of risk and potentially could take down the entire global financial system? that's pretty extraordinary.
12:26 pm
so that alone tells me it's not necessarily more regulators and more regulation that we need, that the regulation to be strong, the regulation to be effective, and the regulators could not be a sleep at the wheel and of some of these bankers to take a risk on, gone wild. >> host: one of our viewers has a definitive opinion who writes, reinstate glass-steagall will get rid of the systemic risk, terry. this time for one last call. lake placid, florida. >> caller: good morning. two things real quick. our banks are supposed to pay back their loans, they didn't pay back 30%, supposedly backpedaled but however, that money cannot go to pay off the treasury bills that was actually financed those but they went
12:27 pm
into the general fund and wisdom by congress. so that money is still out there just added to the debt. second is, our economy is pretty much on life-support. the federal reserve is printing money to monetize the debt. third, we have a president who does not believe in capitalism. if you come out and stated that publicly that capitalism into her 40s of capitalism has basically failed. he seems to have a fascist form of policies that he is put forth where businesses and corporations are practically owned -- publicly owned and privately controlled. >> guest: well look, i mean, i don't agree that capitalism has failed. i think capitalism is messy. free markets are messy. and things always go, you know,
12:28 pm
in a straight line in a stable way. you need sometimes to recognize where the holes are in something. so i do think that at the end of the day free markets work. look at what happened with facebook. the company is priced at $38 a share, $100 billion, when the stock starts trading in its, opened a 42, and then plummets from there. the other day hitting $31 a share, now sort of around 34 but obviously well below the issue price. markets correct themselves. some people would look at that situation and say, facebook was wildly overvalued at $100 billion. when you compare that to the company like apple or other companies that are actually producing product, that are being sold around the world, real earnings, we'll revenue. it's a lot smaller earnings and revenue. facebook might be at the end of the day a fantastic great company that stores at some
12:29 pm
point, but in this situation right of the bat, markets correct it. and markets ice got things into line. so yeah, it was valued at $100 billion, but after a couple of days, are actually right out of the gate people realized this is not where it should be. so i believe free markets work. i do believe it's not a straight line, that you are going to ups and downs but you're going to have bus in booms. and that's because capitalism and free markets are messy, but i wouldn't agree that capitalism has failed. i believe quite the contrary. >> host: on facebook, a summer thing struck on "usa today." facebook a lesson in ipo investing the many ignored a key tenet of it, they risky and they can decline. maria bartiromo, that's a part-time. thank you for spending part of your vitamin. have a good memorial weekend. >> former british prime ministers tony blair testifies
12:30 pm
next week before the levinson and cori on the between politicians and media in britain. mr. blair has been mentioned several times in testimony. over the next several hours we will bring you a look at some key moments of the inquiry with the top people of the company that owned the "news of the world" tabloid. the investigation began with allegations that the newspaper that cause a public and private individuals. the inquiry has since turned to influence on politicians. would begin with rupert murdoch's son, james murdoch. he was brought before the inquiry to answer questions about the news corporation's bid to buy controlling shares in british media company bskyb. and meetings with the then prime minister tony blair and opposition leader david cameron, the current prime minister about the possible purchase. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> one could describe this in a number of ways. you use the term quite fairly,
12:31 pm
it could also be described as lobbying, couldn't it? >> yes. >> it could also be described as a private conversation with the prime minister making it clear the commercial concerns of your company and that he should issue a new understand him, is that right? >> i think, yes, it would have been entirely consistent with public statements, that would've made our others on behalf of the company would have made. and you know, nothing in communicating additionally would have been inconsistent with the companies of you on a further intervention into the market. >> would the purpose of the call in any way was to bring mr. blair on side in the sense that if the european commission
12:32 pm
did intervene, then the british government should unveil bskyb? >> now i think of us choose, it was conversations like this. i would have said this is just to make the prime minister a where of these issues. it's a major british franchise, football playing, and that it would've been unclear whether not he would've been aware what some of the proposals that were flying around warlike. and that's all. >> you wouldn't have either the bad taste or lack of sophistication to make a direct request for prime minister if you were to do that. he would probably ignore. but you ours communicate him, are you not? your concerns on behalf of bskyb, and making it, so at least he would understand it, would you agree? >> yes. the purpose would be to
12:33 pm
hopefully for senior policymakers, the prime minister in this case, to understand that some of these policies might have adverse consequences for british football. english football in this case. >> if certain adverse consequences to your company, wouldn't they? >> potentially. it's important to note the european commission's work on this was really around the way that the sat a bill. it wasn't a way that we are bskyb or any others did. to the structure of the auction itself. >> okay. we looked at jrm nine again, your meetings with gordon brand. >> that's correct. i don't remember -- the middle one, the 15th of december, i don't remember but he would have, you know, he would've told me lots of things about the
12:34 pm
economy, the lack. >> when was it in 2009, that news corp. begin to hatch the idea to acquire the remaining shares in bskyb? >> it was, until it was probably pretty late but actually it was probably, i remember there was a meeting in the summertime about it in los angeles, in august, but starting to come together thinking would it be possible to do that. >> i'll come back to the. mr. cameron is probably best to deal with this chronologically and, therefore, please look at jr jm 10. these are meetings with leaders of the opposition. we can see a number of meetings. this is page 02863.
12:35 pm
in 2006-2007, and 2008. who is mr. at lincoln? >> i don't remember. i think a banker he was assembling business leaders to listen to the leader of the opposition, talk about his attitude towards enterprise, i recall. >> that's an early stage. did you have any doubts about mr. cameron's suitability to be prime minister? >> i don't think i would have thought of it in that way really. i met him occasionally but most of these were sort of at social events organized, other persons house and things like that. and he would have, speaking to anyone around the media would've
12:36 pm
been, or e-business leader, would've been advocating the ripeness of his ideas, i should imagine. >> these meetings, first, understand where mr. cameron was coming from in terms of macroeconomic policy. in other words, well, self explanatory. was that part of these meetings speak with i think in general the direction. i mean, i think politicians generally they like to communicate their vision of policies and what they think is the right thing to do, both economically for business, for society, and they generally try to convince anyone who will listen that they are right and not wrong. >> before "the sun" in particular we think of supporting mr. cameron, it would need to be satisfied that he was on the right page in relation to macroeconomic policy. >> i should think any newspaper would be considering, you know, consider what policies were being put forward in making their own judgment.
12:37 pm
>> wasn't there also this consideration, mr. murdoch, you seem to know where mr. chairman stood on issues that would directly affect your company and your company's? >> not, not really. i mean, i wouldn't really have raised specific things with him about that. other than consistent, you know, my position on policy and things like that have been pretty consistent and pretty public. >> about regulation, whether it is tv regulation, ofcom press regulation, competition plurality. would you want to know about that? >> i think more generally one would like more generally an approach to enterprise, an approach, not so much macroeconomic but an approach to business and how businesses work and how they create jobs and the like. >> so why wouldn't you want to know his views about those matters? >> of me, the purpose of these meetings were not desert to find
12:38 pm
a. from foreign policy to other things spent i'm sure you wish to range over a number of topics, but to the commercialization of the company and some would say your duty to find out where mr. chairman stood, wouldn't? >> on the sure whether leader of opposition stance on issue is commercial advantage to the company. i think the policies that these political leaders espouse they generally do publicly. >> well, if speed is if they have a platform. >> of course to the public domain. and mr. cameron did say that on these matters in a public forum. but would you wish to find out privately what he might say? more over in a private context he might say more. >> mr. jay, which are getting at is some sort of a judgment about a political leader with respect to specific legislation or specific policies around our business, that's really not,
12:39 pm
that's not the way i do business. i would've been interested and flattered to be invited to a dinner the leader of the opposition was at, and i would've been curious to listen to what it is about a variety of topics. >> there was a time when the bskyb did was hatched in the mind of news corp., you say towards the back end. didn't even as a matter of intellectual curiosity occurred to you, to be interesting to know where mr. cameron stood on matters of regulation which might have an impact on being outbid? >> not -- we did an assessment of the regulatory risk, but that's illegal assessment around what a process might look like, with their deregulatory issues, competition issues, et cetera. it was not a narrow political calculation around that. because the legal risk would've been established and we would've made a judgment on the basis. >> the company as sophisticated as nucor would be quite as able
12:40 pm
to it. can we do to calculations? one on the basis of a tory government and one of the basis of the labour government? >> i think that with respect, not with respect to any transaction clear and sober transaction, specific regulation or anything like it. certainly you would look at the general political direction a country was going in as we would anyplace but if it's turkey or india or whatever, is this a place where our enterprise can be pursued. >> it could be around mongolia, it doesn't matter. but mr. murdoch, in relation to the united kingdom, you'd be thinking, particularly if an election is coming up, how is this going to plant, this bit, if on the one and your cameron and on the other hand you have brown? surely that must have been carried out? >> with respect to the offer to make a proposal of the dead, to the shows we didn't already own, that was a part of it. there was a view later on when it was thought that is likely that we might attempt to do
12:41 pm
this, do not, to try to avoid becoming a political issue in the middle of an election, but not with respect to what the likely or possible outcomes of the election were. >> mr. murdoch, to benefit the source merit, examined on two levels. there's the legal analysis or you may be advised that your case is strong. i'll ask you a few comments on the. then there's the political dimension which is however the legal case is, we still have got to get this through because the opposition we might face. on the political stage, that sort of discussion must have taken place, didn't? >> yes. it takes place with respect to what sort of regulatory scrutiny and transaction is going to come under. and you make an assessment around that. certainly while on the regulatory site on competition issues and plurality issues were confident the legal case.
12:42 pm
politics or commercial interest might influence opposition or arguments made against. but, you know, we rest on the soundness of the legal case. >> few evidence to this inquiry that you thought that a labour government reelected in 2010 would be more favorable, more well disposed to the bskyb bid been a new conservative government? >> i don't think governments approach to the bit with something, which governments approach to the bid was something that was necessarily high on our mind. it would have been, we have between new york and london, we had legal and public affairs executives working tightly on this and they made an assessment that from a regulatory perspective there was, you know, it was a sound transaction and that would be able to get it to. there was a question about how
12:43 pm
long it might take, what sort of references were made, what sort would go to the competition commission or not and that would, in fact, the length or phase to european transaction, for example, but it was more derision not ready the likelihood of completion that we were concerned about. >> in september 2009, you had trends with mr. cameron at a place called george. and the topic of the discussion was the suns proposed endorsement of the conservative party. do you see that? >> yes. >> was it made clear to mr. cameron that "the sun" would be endorsing the conservative party? >> it was made clear to mr. cameron by me after discussions with the editor and leadership of news international and my father that that autumn, "the sun" would either be endorsing the conservative party or certainly, you know, moving away from its traditional or recent support of labour, as it
12:44 pm
had been through the summer. >> must've been welcome news to mr. cameron, wasn't? >> it seemed that way. >> did you discuss the timing of "the sun's" endorsement? >> we discussed it during the end of the plan that the editors had was that it would be at the end of the conference ease, and if it happened, if the editors want to see what things came out of the conferences, particularly the labour conference, whether or not what they would say. >> that discussion that would endorse you, out the best possible moment, the worst possible moment for mr. brown, the very day as his speech to the labour party conference. was there discussion on the basis because i don't remember the specificity of that but i just, for clarity, i think was the day after, was the article. it was little more focus on labour's record that was an endorsement of the conservatives. the one you're referring to.
12:45 pm
it was the day after the speech and was really about labour's records. >> is it your evidence that either at the meeting or before you have not discussed regulatory issues with mr. cameron? >> at that meeting i certainly didn't. >> the previous meetings did you discuss in? >> i don't believe so, actually. >> later meetings with mr. cameron, we can see some page 02864, a journal reference to subject, politics. do you think regulation might have been discussed in? >> which? these on the seventh of november and the 23rd of december.
12:46 pm
>> no, there before the election. it's on the second page of jrm 10. >> i think more go i think actually more politics just leading up to an election was more the topic. i don't believe we discussed any specific regulation. and certainly if anything came up they would have been, you know, entirely consistent with the public, you know, the public advocacy that i as a company had undertaken at that point. >> once he becomes prime minister, which as we record in may 2010, you recorded things injured, pages 02952, that a lunch at chequers with your family, one may accept the general social conversation but you don't recall any discussion of the bskyb bid, do you?
12:47 pm
>> no, not on. >> been on the 23rd of december, 2010, there was some discussion according to your witness statement, paragraph 3.19. can we just be clear about this occasion? was this at the home of mr. and mrs. brooks? >> yes, it was. it was the 23rd of december at their home. >> yes. about how many people with her? >> can't remember the exact number but in the teens, maybe a dozen, maybe 15 people. >> it was two days after the revelation that mr. cable might not be approaching the bskyb bid with the entirely open-minded if i put it in that way. >> no, it was two days after mr. cable had been removed from his response to after showing a cute bias. >> fair enough, mr. murdoch if you're entitled to put it that way. so the issue, faith of the bid,
12:48 pm
was very much in your mind on the 23rd of december, 2010, wasn't it? >> it was that it was a big question mark about what would happen going forward, but there was no discussion with mr. cameron other than as i detailed in a witness statement, which is simply reiterated that what he said publicly, is that the behavior have been unacceptable, and i, you know, i imagine i expressed that things would be dealt with in a way that was appropriate and judicial. our only concern during this period was that the correct and appropriate legal test was applied to this transaction and i would have said it to anyone who would listen. but it was a site, a tiny side conversation at head of a dinner where all these people were there. so it was only a discussion, if you will. >> just take a few moments, is that right? >> that's my recollection, yeah. i include here for completeness.
12:49 pm
>> fair enough. then other ministers, meeting with mr. lawrence after you finally told us he re-signed it goes after the 29th of may, 2010. presumably after the bid was announced, is that right? >> yes. yes. >> was the purpose of the discussion to see and the liberal democrats part of the coalition could be onside? >> no, not so much to be brought on site. i had been attempting and requesting to meet with the minister, mr. cable in charge of the portfolio under the enterprise act in this area, that the politician himself, the secretary of state, holds the responsibly to make the decision. it's not a question of a regulator or an independent body or anything like that but it's the secretary of state himself can do that. i had been requesting a meeting
12:50 pm
with mr. cable. i was told that i wasn't able to have a meeting with mr. cable and his advisers with our team is will to talk about the transaction. so i reached our people i think reached out to mr. cable's advisers who suggest we talked to various senior liberal democrats. >> can ask a general question about the timing of the bid? we know what's in the public domain, that news corp. approached bskyb regarding its interest in acquiring the shares of bskyb in june 2010, is that correct? >> that's right. >> which is one month, thereabouts, after the election. wasn't part of the news corp strategy to at least wait until the outcome of the election? >> i think it was to wait until the election was completed regardless of the outcome, such that a transaction of this size, some $12 million, didn't become a political football.
12:51 pm
that was the goal. but the primary driver for the timing was really the affordability of they being able to do it. we've taken some time to really husband our resources carefully. it was contemplated it would be an all cash offer and i took a little while to say that, if you will. after over a number of years but also there was a gap because in 2009, recall, that the financial crisis, with the uncertainty about the environment, you know, large-scale mergers and acquisitions activity was a hard thing to get your head around. and furthermore in 2009, and forgiving, mr. jay, but it's important as i think i know where you're going, but every some of the bskyb board, the independent directors meet together to talk through long-term strategy and the like. and we wanted to do it ahead of that, or around the time when the board was all scheduled to have a few days together so we could be done completely and
12:52 pm
properly with the board. >> i think you said you need to save up over a number of years, is that right? >> the company did. >> so it's just the bskyb bid was at least an embryo over a number of years, wasn't it? >> well, you know, in '09, in late '09 when we start a proper discussions about it was when we were. but in 2007 the company acquired dow jones for five and a half billion dollars in cash. and contemplate the transaction of this size in the mid-aftermath of that and given what happened in 2008 and nine with respect to the global financial crisis would have been difficult. so in '09 and 10 we realize this is something we could actually do. >> i'm sure there's a defense between aspiration and reality. in terms of aspiration, bskyb have been on the radar of news corp for a number of years, hadn't it? >> it had been more than on the
12:53 pm
radar. >> what i mean by that is the acquisition remained a put on shares in bskyb. that's been on the radar for a number of years. >> it has long been aspiration since the merger with dfb. >> when i refer to the outcome of the election and your desired to a way that, part of your calculation was a preference at least four victory? >> i think, i think, i do think it's controversial to say that generally speaking with respect to an approach to enterprise the free market and sore, that the conservatives tried to make a case that there was a better option for that. >> having committed "the sun" to the conservative party on the 30th of september, 2009, it would not have been a desirable outcome had been a labour victory at least as regard to
12:54 pm
the bskyb bid, what it? >> i think, i think it was never a calculation of bskyb bid and his son, if that's what you are saying. we never made, and i've never made that sort of kind of crashed calculation about the what the newspapers to do it just wouldn't occur to me. >> you describe that as a calculation, but i guess you would make a sophisticated calculation of preference for particular results in the general election, as regard what might work best for the bskyb bid to you would at least do that? >> for the british economy in general, which would lead you to the view that you're happy or less happy to invest. that was, i don't know if my personal politics mattered to you, but that would've been my view, yes. >> and we know from your witness statement, that your telephone calls to or with mr. jeremy
12:55 pm
hunt, whose secretary of state for culture, media, olympics and sport. on the 10th of november and the 15th of november, 2010. our page 02962. you also say you don't recall whether the conversations related to bskyb, is that correct? >> that's correct, i don't recall. there would have been a number of items for minister that the company, that the minister would have sought not to be put out from the industry in general, and that was what it was. he didn't have any authority or any remakes with respect to the bskyb bid transaction at the time. but if i did say anything about it it would've only been to seek assurances that the appropriate legal test was applied and the
12:56 pm
this didn't become a political issue. >> this was i think shortly after the european intervention, wasn't it? >> i can't remember the exact date of european intervention notice, but i do remember, i think it was, i can't remember. i'll come back to you on the. i have a schedule. the european intervention notice, i'm sure you already know, mr. jay, but -- was -- >> fourth of november spent yes, for the november so it was a
12:57 pm
little while after that. >> not that long after it, was it? >> a week later. >> mr. -- >> a, at the time. >> he was a huge ally of news international, wasn't he? >> i wouldn't describe it that way, no. i don't think so. >> according to what was then on his personal website, he was. you have seen that, haven't you? >> yes, i saw it, and evidence you put a. that's the first time i have seen it. >> hunt is a cheerleader for rupert murdoch's contribution to the house. but i don't think had been allied in business to conclude that the. >> is a bit of opinion wrapped up in the fact, isn't it? >> the cheerleading part, yes. but the conjugation has been significant. >> i think the point i am making, very gently, is that mr. hunt was onside. is true he did not have the word
12:58 pm
jurisdiction over the bid, as that was the secretary of state for the ideas, mr. vince cable. but the purpose of the call was to see if he could borrow the wheels of it, isn't that right? >> no, i don't think so. i think it would've been, i don't remember, i don't remember this particular calls, but i think there might have been a desire to update him on the process and what we are hearing but it might've been to say, just talk about everything from next generation access to others that don't have the record in front of me. one call was about a beating that he canceled at the last minute -- a meeting that he canceled at the last minute. i think he apologized because lawyers told him not to. i don't know if it's one of those calls. >> can i ask you please to look at that the 53, the bundle we prepared for you, our page
12:59 pm
01962, record of early meetings with mr. hunt before the election. >> tab 53 did you say? >> it is in my personal bundle. but it might be tab 52 in your version. i will give you time to find out. it lists the meetings with -- >> i see them in electronic system. >> it is, i hope, the first meeting in october '09 you discuss among other things, to reform ofcom, didn't you? >> i think he had come on, there's a whole agenda of the number of things that were discussed. >> yes, and ofcom was one of them, wasn't it? >> it is on the list. >> and the next meeting,
1:00 pm
february 2010, new communications, media regulation. do you recall anything about that? >> no. i think was the opposition governments, the opposition, the opposition did you ever think they were going to have, think about and the first time if they were elected in new communications act. ..
1:01 pm
>> did you, previously to this, talked about the bbc licensing fee? >> no, i never thought that that was a very good idea, and i have been very consistent and transparent about that. if i would've been asked and if i would've been at that meeting from i would've told him my views. it is better to keep in intervention concentrated and measurable. which was the same position that the bbc had as well. >> later on, after the election, in october 2010, there was a license fee settlement with the bbc. i think it was that the licensee was frozen for a number of years. was that something which you discussed with any member of the conservative or coalition government? >> i don't remember -- i don't
1:02 pm
remember if i did. but if i did, i would have said that they should've gone through a proper process, a schedule for renewing the license fee for the following year where they could it can consulted with the stakeholders. i was very upset with that settlement. >> regardless of the process, it was an outcome which was in the interest of things, wasn't it? >> i don't think so. i think that the whole industry would have welcomed a process of wider concentration and discussion around that. >> did you have any contact with ministers order officials in relation to the changes announced in 2010, the reduced budget by 20%. >> 8%. >> no, i don't think so. again, was that an outcome which
1:03 pm
was a favorite? >> i've been very forward about this for the skilled intervention by media regulation. i don't think there is anything that would surprise anyone at this point. i think most of us gets put back to us anyway. >> it is being set of you will that you are a friend of [inaudible name] >> weaver friends. we have been fenley. i wouldn't say it was a close friend of his. >> one newspaper says that you have children of the same age. you get on well, according to a the "the guardian."
1:04 pm
>> yes. as i said, i am friends with mr. osborne. >> have you been to the chancellors home? [talking over each other] >> have you had any discussions with him about the bskyb bid? >> i think i had one discussion that it might've come up which was during the process that we would have just been grumpy about it, which i was very clear in public at the same time. nothing i would've said to mr. osborne would've been inconsistent with public advocacy on the subject.
1:05 pm
>> is it possible to differentiate in any way between what you describe as your public advocacy and what took place in private? the purpose of the former is obvious and entirely appropriate. the purpose of the letter may be said to seek to gain from a covert advantage in relation to your opponents. >> no, i don't think -- that would not be the way i would do it. i am for the best i look at this and say listen, i like to be direct. i like to have a clear set of principles that guide how we think about the marketplace working come up what we do, what the regulation advises, i like to lay out publicly. if views are consulted on in those areas, i was at the same thing. it is legitimate advocacy, if you will, of positions for policymakers.
1:06 pm
that is important. i think all business leaders would take the same approach, and i think that they should. >> the press clearly has an enormous megaphone, and they can promote the views that they think are correct and the evidence, which you have spoken of, was clearly very important. do you think that you obtain greater access for yourself as a businessman, because you have the weight of press interests behind you? >> well, i certainly don't know what all of the other meetings that the prime minister or these people take in general. i think it is true to say that politicians and people around the political class, if you will, they are very eager to get their points across them and they doesn't like to talk to the
1:07 pm
press. we have seen a schedule of the prime minister's meetings with all the different journalists and proprietors and etc. there is a lot there. from the standpoint as a businessperson, i don't think i have personally experienced that. actually, i haven't actually spent that much time with politicians personally. and certainly, most of my interaction with these politicians has been around british sky broadcasting, the politics of news and things like that but don't really fit in. the vast majority of my career is making television here. >> i understand that. but do you think it might've been an advantage when you had been discussing bskyb in making television? and the contribution that bskyb had made, that actually, news international has other interests, which had been capable of at least potentially making a difference?
1:08 pm
>> i don't think there is any evidence of an advantage with the risk undreamt way that we upgraded our business and the weight is regulated. and also governed in the country. i really just don't think that is their credit i think it is a question, perhaps, for the politicians about how they thought. certainly, for me, i just wouldn't link the two. i would never do that. i think the press and the newspapers have to make the decisions on behalf of their leaders and in the context of the country and what they think is right. i need to be able to win the argument, if you will, for british sky broadcasting on the merits of the business and legal case, if it is a merger or other things like that. that is all i would ever seek to do. >> and your discussions with politicians before the general election, was it obvious to you
1:09 pm
whether you he would be supporting a party in due course >> i don't think i was ever asked directly about that. >> that wasn't a question. the question is whether it was obvious to you if they would know whether your newspapers would support their party's in due course? >> yes, i think all politicians would be interested to know that and seek the support of the newspapers and media. that is very much part of the way they see their jobs as communicators. to be able to avail themselves to that megaphone, for their own policies and purposes. i think that is reasonably evident. >> in terms of ever-changing balance of power here, and the arrival of election, it must've occurred to you the balance of power is more with you than with
1:10 pm
them, but did you let them know if your newspapers report to support them. did you let them know that? >> i hope that is not the case. i hope they don't think that's the case. we live in an environment of such extraordinary choice in media sources. that is a very old-fashioned sort of you, if you will, of big media proprietors and being able to dominate the landscape. that doesn't exist anymore. i just think it's not the case. >> mr. murdoch, i am not actually concerned with reality. because one could never prove. >> pardon me, i'm sorry. >> i'm not so sure what you mean dream act i certainly am.
1:11 pm
>> i could never prove, if even a newspaper as important as "the sun", i could never prove. i think you just confirm the answer. politicians believe that, don't they? >> whether or not they don't believe it it doesn't change the fact as tremont was suggesting, that they seek, and i would suggest, i've never had a conversation. i think that is true of pretty much anyone they talk to. i think that is true with any direct or indirect relationship with the press. >> are you agreeing or disagreeing with me in regards to the minds of politicians, support of the papers -- that
1:12 pm
may be important. >> i can agree that it may be important, but i think it's a question for them. >> in terms of your analysis of the timing of something in regards to this, as to the power you can exercise over politicians, a very critical time in the run-up to an election? >> absolutely not. it would not be part of our assessment. we would not exercise our power over politicians. that is not the case. >> after the election, the tables have turned somewhat. the power is more with the politicians, isn't it? particularly if you need their help in relation to promotional product and projects, such as the acquisition of the remaining shares of bskyb?
1:13 pm
>> i would not see the table there to turn. i would say that power is with the lava land and the policymakers around it. and you have to assess the environment and whether or not the investment is advisable or not, and assess the regulatory environment and played straight as you can. >> i'm sure playing it straight is usually the best way forward. do you have accepted some time, mr. murdoch, this morning. in the regulations, not just the legal issues, which is also political, it is a political issue, isn't it? >> there is always the risk that a transaction or business activity can be politicized, if you will. and that concerns around the environment around something can be there. yes, that is the case. >> it is more than the risk. if you look at the history in relation to international, with
1:14 pm
1981, 1987, 1990 with the original merger between two companies. there has always been a political debate, which has gone on alongside the legal or substantial debate, hasn't there? >> unfortunately, there has been a political debate, and my concern, as i have been involved in business in this country has always been to try and keep the debate on the legal side and weed out facts and merits and be pretty square on this and be consistent with respect to how we legislate and how we regulate industry and how we can ultimately create an environment for better investment and more jobs in this industry. >> are you aware, mr. murdoch, in regards to the debate, it would be inevitable that the
1:15 pm
debate would spill over into the political domain, wouldn't you? >> as i said, mr. jay, i really don't understand. there are many debates. there are debates around whether or not a transaction may or may not act against the public interest, which we dealt with lester. there are debates iran unction around how sports rights are sold. and there are debates around politics. when we started to invest at bskyb, there was a political angle, early day motion, people saying to keep it [inaudible] , my job was to say no, from a legal perspective, it is entirely appropriate for english cricket to be broadcast on bskyb, and from the standpoint of bands and so forth.
1:16 pm
i always try to bring it back to what is legally sound, what are the right arguments for industry, and make the political debate, one that is less relevant, one that isn't based in what is right or legal or whether right jurisdiction is. >> the first minister of scotland, you had lunch with him in january 2000 and 11. and there was a letter on the 25th of january 2011. >> do i have that letter in my bundle? >> let me have a look.
1:17 pm
>> you may not have it, sir. >> the letter in january, yes. >> have you got those enhanced? >> yes. >> how many people did bskyb employed in scotland? >> thousands. i don't know the number off the top of my head, but i can come back to the exact number later, about five or 6000 or a few more. >> i saw a reference to his many as 18,000. >> 18,000 is the total bskyb at british sky broadcasting employees, total number of employees. >> in relation to 2007 election
1:18 pm
when "the sun" did not support the party, his party became upset, didn't they? >> in 2007, that was before i was there, i am afraid. >> that is part of the history. >> i don't know what the relationship is like. i only met him more recently than that. >> okay. >> number 567 of the bundle we put together for you. it is the event which allegedly took place at the independence. do you recall this? >> yes, i recall the cover story. >> they say that you went around
1:19 pm
to the independence offices and swore at them. and set an article about the election. is that correct? >> that is not correct, mr. jay. may may i give you my version of events? >> tell us what happened, mr. murdoch. >> i had a meeting in the building, the same building as associated newspapers. i had a meeting in associated, which is in the article. we went downstairs. and i was upset and concerned because the independent had not run an article about this, but put up a lot of giant billboards around england that i had seen pictures of what that message, rupert murdoch won't decide this election. i thought they were personalizing an agenda against my father and family that i found independent.
1:20 pm
i am always a direct person, and i think that you should tell someone to their basic of the problem whether than talking on their back. particularly because i knew him, and i was concerned about it. so i went into the front door of "the independent" come and they really didn't have a desk or reception area. you are automatically in the middle of the newsroom, which i wasn't intending to do. i didn't storm in anywhere. i found the gentleman and i said that i speak you for a moment. then we went into his private office and shut the door. i told him of my concerns, and whether or not to use colorful language, i wouldn't dispute. certainly, there was no storming and none of this happened out in the open in the newsroom. i was particularly upset because mr. kalmar had been hospitable to my family for years. i thought this was not a decent way to go about his business.
1:21 pm
>> before we look at the detail of bskyb, and the dead, can i ask you, about the issue of special advisers was mr. osborne involved, and mr. harrison. >> i don't have any recollection of that. i just don't know. >> yorick lead to mutations, would be fair to describe him. >> no, mr. anderson is a communications and marketing executive who deals with public affairs, which would be lobbying the public affairs and reported to mr. anderson about brand and marketing as well.
1:22 pm
>> in regards to the bskyb dead, did you instruct mr. anderson to have contact with any of the specialist advisers order mr. hans or mr. osborne? >> i think there was a regular, generally speaking, at the public affairs level, it was mr. fred michel who reported to mr. anderson at that time who dealt with a direct contact with the political lever level and people of that nature. that was the p.o. box for the company there. >> obviously, we are going to hear from your father tomorrow, we know that he had some meetings with politicians, and you did as well, you told us about them. particularly, in 2008 to the
1:23 pm
general election in may 2010, would it be fair to say that mr. brooks, the majority of meetings with politicians,. >> i have seen the schedule, i think some of the prime ministers meetings in that period of time. i can't remember. but she would've been closer to those issues than i would have been. >> was a part of the general way of working, as it were, that miss brooks reported back to you as the outcome, and he would report anything important that your father? >> from time to time, she would report to me by the discussion that was relevant, but she would communicate directly with my father. you know, with some frequency. >> when you had discussions internally in september 2009, within "the sun", you covered it
1:24 pm
in .6 of your statement, and you discussed miss brooks and yourself and your father, your father might've been involved as well. did the discussions involve any assessments of who might win the next election? >> the discussions in may 2009, or whenever it was, or around that, there was a question of what the "the sun" position would be. through that summer,, content "the sun" was writing extensively about their management of the complex in afghanistan, there was a decision about not supporting the labour party, after supporting two elections previously when i was there. i was involved in some of those
1:25 pm
discussions. really, regarding the paper's position. not the likelihood of who would win, but obviously come in those meetings, if someone would've said the polls say this or this and that, that sort of business. >> that, in particular, was why the political adversary was back, wasn't it? sibiu could be biased as to the likely outcome of the next election as far as anybody could assess? but also to hear the relevant internal us view on the individuals involved. the quality of their policies. how he got the leadership and the leaders were feeling. >> okay. >> to have input. >> the decision was factual, or the one factor, of who's going to win? >> yes, i think you try to see the mood of the country.
1:26 pm
>> now, bskyb itself, you covered this in section three of your statement, which begins 02597. this is quite intricate. a lot of it we don't need to delve into. although it is good that he set up a history here. in terms of legal positions, have i got this right? there was a competition aspect, which would be dealt with in europe, as it were, in a plurality us by, which would be dealt with by the secretary of state. yes, there was the opportunity for the competition aspect to be requested for the jurisdiction
1:27 pm
of that. but it was seen as an unlikely scenario. it would be granted anyway, this was primarily a merger of european television platforms. >> now, the competition aspect within europe was resolved in neutral favor of december 2007, wasn't it? the date of the 21st of december? >> it was resolved without having found that the theories of harm or relevant or credible. >> so we are left with a plurality us back, which i understand contingently might have a separate competition issue. let's concentrate on the plurality aspect. the position was that what happened with the mitigation involving the commission which went to the court of appeals, a decision had already been made
1:28 pm
for those with no plurality issue. because 39.1% of the capital of bskyb, is that correct? >> it is correct but that was one of the things relevant to that. but we didn't simply rely on that precedent, which was, in fact, that was the president. also on the merits, the underlying facts of the case, with respect to an assessment of plurality in the marketplace between 2003 when the relevant provisions were put into law and 2010, when it was to be tested again. the test is around the suspicions of plurality and the sufficiency of a number of news news providers in a marketplace. >> can we agree this much, mr. murdoch, whether or not the new score is right, the new score had a good case on that
1:29 pm
the reality? >> that was the advice that we received. >> as we have also accepted, it was potentially explained. the political issue was generated by the fact that there were people out there who had it in for news corporation and news international? >> it was more than just that, mr. for neville -- mr. jay, they relevant point here. the press outside of news corporations, the other newspaper proprietors in the marketplace, they had a very distinct commercial beer around bundling and cross promotion in particular, and around the size and scale of news corporation's
1:30 pm
interest in the uk and the acquisition that had been completed. that is a pure, competition argument. they turned that very effectively into an argument that the future competitiveness of their enterprises would be at risk, if this new competitor were present. therefore, the relic he was at a risk of some point in the future. that is a dynamic assessment of plurality that has nothing to do with the relevant legal tests. it is relevant, and it is important to note that it is commercial, not simply political. in fact, it is primarily commercial. >> from the point of view of your competitors, if you're looking at the perspective of politicians, because politicians -- some are cheerleaders for news international. we have seen preference on websites to that effect. and others are possibly have favorable displays to news corps and news international. >> yes, that is true. there are differences of
1:31 pm
outlook. >> and the lobbying that is going to take place is to try and ensure that those who are on site remain on site, and perhaps communicate things to you, and run over those who are not on-site? >> i think in any situation of a business, any business is going to, yes, advocate the merits of the case. be it an investment case for a regulatory case to a wide audience of policymakers who may or may not be in a position to have some input into its. >> in terms of the chronology, which i indicate quite shortly, those who wish to study it, i invite them to read your witness statement, which will be put online. the points of fact which i wish to dispute, december 2010, the denver responsible secretary of
1:32 pm
state, played a crucial role for determining the bids was replaced because he was afforded the same he had declared war on mr. murdoch. >> yes. >> and the outcome reported on the 31st of december, 2010, his point, 3113, they were in effect recommending it recommendation to the conference committee, where they? >> yes, that's right. >> an outcome where perhaps in the camp, and you perceive them to be such -- slightly hostile in regards to the international news corps. i think it is important not to conflate international and news corps.
1:33 pm
the primary engagement was around british sky broadcasting in the relevant regulators since they were set up. it is fair to say, and we made extensive submissions to this point, to dc ms and in the ms c. >> and there was responsibly for adjudicating the bid, there were two, i can describe formal meetings with him, there are meetings in the bundle. the perks is in -- the first is a jittery 2011. january 2011.
1:34 pm
>> do you recognize the personal president. is this your secretary of state's minutes? >> i believe this is the secretary of state's minutes from dcms. >> his specialist advisor, mr. adam smith, is there. do you see that, mr. murdoch? someone who had his picture someone in the narratives. in terms of your team and news corps team, someone called mr. frederick, mr. fred michel. his role was to lobby. in support of the bid, was in a? >> he was running on various issues. he was the liaison with policymakers. that is what a public affairs executive does. >> had he been hired in may 2009? >> i can't remember when he
1:35 pm
started, precisely. >> it won't matter much, but the secretary of state on the basis of councils and right, did he mind to the affairs of competition commission, was their consideration given to offering undertakings, offered on the 18th of january 2011? the purpose of offering them was to remove or mitigate the plurality concerns, wasn't that? >> yes, essentially, the secretary of state has said he had received the advice that he should prefer within his remit under this particular part of the enterprise act, for him to take that and wait up with any undertakings that might or might not be able to deal with the issues. given the length of time that the competition commission
1:36 pm
review would take, we decided rather than go through the lengthy process of trying to win the arguments with the competition commission, we would simply offer an undertaking even though we did not concede that there was an issue there. the undertaking was up substantial structural undertaking of separating sky news, not changing the structure at all, but investing be ample sums in its continuing operations over a tenure. a tenure period. >> in another meeting with your advisers and his advisers on generate 25th, 2011, which i don't think we need to look at, but the question of undertaking what happened, what happened subsequently, there was a
1:37 pm
consultation -- there was some issue about the undertaking, and therefore, you advised the undertaking. a second consultation is launched on the 30th of june ending on the 30th of july 2011. on the number of liberals, the many dollars story was published on july 4, 2011. is that more or less correct? >> yes reedmac as you clearly state in your statement, the atmosphere was such >> yes. >> thank you. >> that gives us the framework.
1:38 pm
we are now going to look at and evidence your father provided in response, related to material that was sent to you. your father had no direct involvement with it. the process was dealing with you. >> mr. jay, i think some of them were sent to me, but not all of them. just for clarity. >> you have an opportunity to review them? >> yes, i have, just recently. >> 163 pages, it required a word of introduction.
1:39 pm
as i mentioned, mr. fred michel, about five minutes ago, he is put in a witness statement on april 18, 2012. he makes the point, and therefore, to see it on this basis best in relation to the period, december 24, 2010 to july 2011, conversations , exchanges, at least on the face of this material, it took place at the secretary of state, with mr. adam smith. do you call me, mr. murdoch? >> yes, i am following you. >> with that, we can have a look
1:40 pm
now at this exhibit. the other important warning is that it is sometimes difficult to understand this material without knowing what was going on in terms of the currency of the bid and the form of a commercially confidential information on behalf of news corps with respect to the secretary of state. at the appropriate time i will introduce that. at least we understand succinctly where we are. the first page is 01642, page one on the internal memorandum. june 15, 2010, it appears to be
1:41 pm
a conference call involving you and mr. fred michel's and mr. kapor, is that right? >> i'm not sure if i recall fred being on the telephone or not, but he was there with me. it was a direct call to mr. mr. tabor. >> this call went well. he did say that there would not be policy issue in this case. and then mr. michelle has written, we should have recorded this. that is ironic on these two letters. he didn't seem a lot. you told him relation to the
1:42 pm
size of our group, the group appreciated. you recall that? >> i think it is the annual dinner we do in june around this time, the summer party for pretty much everyone. advertisers, some politicians, partners, executives in the business, their spouses and so on. it is a big party that we do. >> the next page, tier 1643, mr. anderson is copied in, and you discussed who he is. it says mr. michel speaking. had a call from an advisor. this is at a time when mr. hunt
1:43 pm
had no advice to the decision, is that correct? >> that is correct. he didn't have a role in the decision until december. >> there shouldn't be media plurality, and you believed the uk government would be supported for the process, despite what you are suggesting this evening. mr. hunt, wanted your feedback on his speech when you meet. then there is reference to his speech. it is pretty clear that you were receiving information on the lines that the uk government as a whole would be supportive of news corps, is that right? >> i think mr. hunt had publicly said at some point around this time, that he personally didn't see any issues, but the relevant secretary of state would be handling it. there is no special information or anything like that in there.
1:44 pm
again, it looks to me like there were other items on the agenda, as i said, things like next-generation access, under the normal customary back and forth between a public affairs executive in people at dcms on a regular basis. >> the decision was exclusively with response to the secretary of state. isn't the message here for mr. hunt's advisers, to the extent appropriate, or perhaps even inappropriate, the uk government would be supportive throughout the process? >> well, i just don't -- i don't think it is necessarily inappropriate at all. i think this is just one part, the dcms part of the government, saying we don't see any issues here. it will be fine, which is what
1:45 pm
mr. tabor had told me on the telephone. a public affairs executive often tries to listen and report back what he hears. people call around issues on the business, if there is a transaction, particularly if there is a regulatory or policy outcome that could be bad, for example, something that needs intervention, something like that, in the public affairs executive is the point person for those officials to have discussions. >> as we move through this bundle, we are going to see that none of your replies to mr. michel, being that -- the reason being it was difficult to prepare the bundle. they have been made separately available and will be published online as soon as possible. none of your replies are of any interest apart from one, and that i will come to in due
1:46 pm
course. >> okay. >> the next page. mr. michel, again, jeremy just cause, and it looks as if it is mr. hunt speaking directly to mr. michel, would you agree? >> i don't know who, but again i wasn't on this. i'm not copied on this e-mail. >> so this is one that i don't have any direct knowledge about. mr. jacobs was the general counsel of news corporation globally, he was very closely involved in the regulatory and legal process here. there is a european general counsel and andre was the lawyer in europe as well. >> it looks as if you have best have a response on june 15, 2012, correct?
1:47 pm
>> yes, and i think it corresponds to the record we saw earlier, does it not? >> i believe so, but it is not critical. was the bskyb is discussed during that? >> i don't remember. i think it was in those days around the announcement of the bid, so i would be surprised if it wasn't. i would've taken the same position that we had taken publicly in that i took with anyone who would listen. >> okay. the next page, 01645, we are moving to the 28th of july 2010. this was a copied into you, it appears, mr. murdoch. we can see what mr. cable was saying about people very close to him. he seems a very much
1:48 pm
anti-regulation. he also believes that that this would have no impact on media plurality. either he changed his mind, or he was slightly wrong. >> i think he actually said later on that all of the advice that he received around the official advice from whitehall, he described it, was very clear that there were no issues. he said that in the newspaper in july 2011. i think i have submitted in evidence, a freedom of information request, the advice from his advisers at the time, which drew the same conclusion after consultation with vrsp. he later received other device, that obviously, informed him to act differently.
1:49 pm
>> the next page, 01646, september 15, 2010, mr. michel to your advisor. it relates to a blog of mr. robert peskin online. it was expected to review news corps bids for bskyb. he plainly would have been of concern to you. what mr. michel is saying is that jeremy hunt is not aware and thinks it's not credible at all. he is checking out. mr. michel is finding out from mr. hunt or his specialist advisor, what mr. hunt's view is about this blog. are we agreed to? >> it seems that he's trying to find out what mr. peskin's information is and if it is credible.
1:50 pm
somebody from -- it is important to put into context at this time, i was repeatedly seeking an official proper meeting with mr. cable. that way i could make the legal case and give the business rationale. and we were not able to have that meeting. we had very limited means of communicating. >> the way you did communicate was through cheerleader, mr. hunt? >> i think that is unfair. mr. michel is a diligent public affairs executive, who communicated with many people across the political political spectrum. >> and he did that mr. peskin's blog and seven minutes later he our he reported that he checked with dcms. is that fair? >> i think that is what the code looks a. >> okay. >> it was of some concern,
1:51 pm
mr. peskin's report, and mr. michel would've called who he could to find out if it was true. that would've been his job. >> if i understand your mindset, that you want getting anywhere with mr. cable, or that was your perception. let's find out what is happening with other secretaries of state who might be able to come to assistance, and that is what you instructed mr. michel to do. >> i don't think it shows that at all, mr. jay. i think they're trying to find out if it is true. >> let's go forward a couple of pages 206148. >> i don't have those numbers, i think. >> it seems to be out of sequence, i'm afraid. i apologize for that. the 23rd of june 2010.
1:52 pm
he is being advised to settle down on the sky process. that is making the point that mr. murdoch made a moment ago, he wasn't able to have a meeting with mr. cable, wasn't it? >> and i wanted a proper meeting, the kind you described before. i wanted to formally make my case to the secretary of state. >> mr. michel found out more about mr. cable, the least in 01649. the e-mail of september 27, 2010. on page 80 if you were just working on it? yes. yes, sir. >> mr. michel spoke to
1:53 pm
mr. cable's junior minister. do i have the right individual? >> i now read this to say that it is the lord of sure he's talking to. but that doesn't say that in here. >> the one interesting point, if you look at the second bullet point, thinking through the immediate aspects of the transaction, which occur in his judgment, the way sky news handled the general election coverage and quality of news to be in reference to the "news of the world" saga, over the way
1:54 pm
the murdoch press has treated his own party politics and labor, in the past 12 months. it looks as if they are a strong political flavor, entering into this process. would you agree? >> yes, and it was very alarming. in none of those three bullet points, they don't have anything to do the with the proper legal test and question of the efficiency of plurality. >> this may be said to be part of the risk you took. the way your press treated the dems and labour, it was not exactly favorable, all reason for it a conservative victory. and it had not had the conservative settled is indeed had occurred. >> it isn't perfectly reasonable
1:55 pm
and appropriate for me to have an expectation that a government official acted in a appropriate role. but the right tests would be applied and not get into this stuff. call me naïve about it, but i thought actually did these senior ministers are serious people who try to do their job. >> mr. murdoch, this is absolutely key. we make you have one government minister who say that he don't like the way they behave, and i'm going to hold that against them, but the other government minister, mr. hunt, who is treated in a rather distant way by the murdoch press. he is thinking, in terms of exactly the converse to mr. tabor. >> i don't think there's anything in mr. hunt's communication that would suggest that he did anything other when negotiating the undertaking,
1:56 pm
that at every turn, mr. hunt took the advice of the independent regulators in particular. and every single decision point. >> the points i put you, to you, it really didn't answer into your calculations at all. you have told us that you are outraged by what we hear in relation to mr. cable. yet, the obvious converse of that is that you would expect someone you did support to show you favor. [talking over each other] >> i am sorry, mr. jay, that is actually not the case. the question of support of an individual newspaper for politicians one way or another is not something that i would ever link to a commercial transaction like this. nor would i expect that political support one way or another ever to translate into a minister behaving in that way whatsoever. i certainly wouldn't work that late. >> okay, mr. murdoch.
1:57 pm
page 01651. it is good to know this one, because you had sent it. it was one of the bullet points here. two thirds of the way down, it says, advised all the key dems in coming weeks. go to the impact of the transaction is the key, since it was made clear that the media agenda has had a very negative influence on the decision-making process. argue with me on that one? >> yes. >> maybe the gentleman was part of that. >> you can see james murdoch's entire testimony at c-span.org video library. the coverage will continue in a
1:58 pm
moment with rupert murdoch. he was asked about his meetings with former prime ministers, margaret thatcher, tony blair, gordon brown, and current leader david cameron. >> there is an extra day of "book tv" this holiday weekend on c-span 2. this gentleman may be best remembered for his duel with alexander said. a different side of the vice presidency saturday night on 8:30 p.m. eastern. on "after words", the foreign director for asian affairs at the national security council. on north korea. >> violation of human rights is a ridiculous dialogue. you can tell them that you need to improve your human rights situation, and their response to you will be coming we have had this conversation at the official level, their response is you in the united states have human rights problems, too.
1:59 pm
i mean -- that is not a comparable discussion. >> saturday night at 10:00 p.m. also this weekend, marcus luttrell details of operation redwinged, from service. a navy seal out war. three days of "book tv" this weekend on c-span 2. >> you are watching c-span 2 at politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate on weeknights watched key public policy events and every weekend, the untranslated nonfiction authors and books on "book tv." ..
2:00 pm
>> your full name, please, mr. murdoch. >> keith rupert murdoch. >> in front of you i believe you'll see a witness statement. signed and dated the 12th of april of this year with 44 exhibits. the declaration of truth on. are you content the inquiry besieger statement, your formal testimony? >> im. >> as i said to a number of other witnesses, indeed to many other witnesses, i'm very grateful for the obvious care that you have taken in the preparation of your evidence and them into your place before the inquiry and i wanted to report that.
2:01 pm
>> thank you, sir spent you're the chairman and chief executive officer of the news corporation, company incorporated in the united states? >> yes spent total assets $60 billion in annual wealth revenue of $34 billion, is that right? >> approximately, yes. >> for our purposes, you can be more parochial. approximately 80% of new scores revenue is generated in the united kingdom, 60% by news international, is that right? >> that is right. >> anyone who wants greater detail may look at her witness statement when it's published in due course. will it be fair to say that you have been following british politics for at least 50 years, mr. murdoch? >> yes, i suppose i'll. >> with varying intensity. >> you say that you welcome this inquiry.
2:02 pm
follows then that rumors you have not given mr. cameron for setting it up are untrue, is that right? >> did i say that? and my witness statement? >> use it in your witness statement you welcome the inquiry. i'm putting to you, you were presumably untrue that you have forgiven him for setting up this inquiry. >> untrue. >> why do you say there's a need for this inquiry, mr. murdoch? >> well, i think they need is really obvious. there have been some abuses. i would expect, say there are many other pieces, we can go into that in time. and communist, the state of media in this country is in absolute vital interest to all its citizens. so i think, frankly, i welcome
2:03 pm
the opportunity because i wanted to put a certain myths today. >> you use the word abuses. is that your perception or understanding that abuses go further than these of phone hacking? or are these the issue of phone hacking? >> i think for the. >> we'll come back to that in due course. i'll ask you about your business philosophy, which you cover in a statement. and can i see if we can crystallize out of what you say three main points. first, you have an intuitive instinct for inquiring businesses which you believe will be successful. secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you have a long-term perspective. and thirdly, you have a deep flair for an understanding of the possibilities of technology. mr. murdoch, have i got that right?
2:04 pm
>> okay, make very slight amendments. >> certainly. >> i would say whether intuitive or otherwise, have been confined to the media, not just any business. long-term, i think you're absolutely right. i have, just about everything i've done in terms of major moves for the company, particularly one we're in at the moment, is very long-term view. and sometimes i've been right and sometimes i've been wrong. at great cost. spink and ask you briefly about your political philosophy? would it be fair to say that you always have been a great admirer of baroness thatcher and what she is done? >> yes. i was, i became that after she was elected. and i remain a great admirer.
2:05 pm
>> "the sun" supported her in the 79 election. so presumably your support for mrs. thatcher crystallized in your mind before that election, would that be right? >> well, i think all newspapers, pretty much the same. we had just come through the most terrible winter of discontent, the strikes come disruptions to the whole society, and i think we all want to change. >> can i put one quote to you. it's indeed from you. an interview by mr. william scowcroft in "time" magazine 25th of october 1999, and we needn't turn it up. this is you speaking. what does libertarian mean? as much individual
2:06 pm
responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible, but i'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit. is the gist of that few rules but not no rules of? >> clearly, there are necessary rules in a working society. but they can be overdone. >> from and tweets of yours betray a hostile approach to right wingers. who were you referring to? >> don't take my tweets to seriously. [laughter] i think i was really saying that the extremists on both sides were piling it on me. >> he referred to myths about you, mr. murdoch. is it your feeling there is a lot of mythology around and about you which needs to be
2:07 pm
devolved? >> yes. >> well, we will see how we get on in the course of today. can i say what the plan is. we're going to focus on the political issues before -- first, and will be speaking chronological otherwise we lose track of where we are. then i will go to the issue of phone hacking, and then we will look at some broader questions. are you content with that? >> yes, indeed,. >> thank you. the acquisition of a times and the sunday times, which is a separate vignette in the case for which i do need to cover in your witness statement and addresses, ubiquitous papers and by the end of 1980, didn't you, mr. murdoch? >> yes. perhaps. >> well, we'll talk about how
2:08 pm
many. at that stage from you having acquired the "news of the world" in 68, and "the sun" in 69, you had slightly over 30% of the uk newspaper market, is that correct? >> must've been a more sudden success than i thought and memory to have reached 30% within 10 years them but i will take you for it. >> the deadline for the purchase, that was going to take place march 1981, and by way of background, the secretary of state for trade and industry, mr. john pipkin, was obliged by statute referred the case to the monopolies and merger division. the case was one of urgency.
2:09 pm
that's the background on the law. i invite you now pleased to look at -- >> put in aches if it's to prove that he said that. >> well -- >> that indeed was thompson's. very strong. >> it's whether the times, the sunday times were not economic growing concern, which this may be an issue. but can we look, please, at document evidencing a lunch at chequers with baroness thatcher on the fourth of january, 1981. it is your exhibit krm 40 m. which may well have been tab 15 in bundle. you will see that mr. income it is ms. thatcher's press secretary noted this on the fifth of january, 81, our number 01626 address to the prime
2:10 pm
minister, attached is a record of salient points of your lunch yesterday with rupert murdoch. in line with your wishes, the attached does not go outside number 10 and is of course treated commercial and conference. this is a document which didn't go to the public domain into march of this year, mr. murdoch. do you understand that? >> yes. >> according to the history of the times, the murdoch years published by harpercollins in 2005, page 28, you previously have had no recollection whatsoever of this lunch, is that right? >> correct. i still don't, to be honest. but i totally accept mr. ingham minutes, detailed minutes, which sound to me to be direct. >> well, it was quite -- >> i think i would ask
2:11 pm
mrs. thatcher. she said why don't you come to lunch on sunday. >> according to mr. ingham snow, this is our pages or 167,. >> yes. >> it was quite an infamous occasion, one that looks at a few number of people there. there was obviously the prime minister, mr. thatcher, mr. ingham, and you, and the meeting was at your request. do you see that? >> yes. >> so i hope you don't mind if i tease you about this, but when you told the committee on the 19th of july of last year, that you wish politicians would leave you alone, you weren't of course referring to this meeting? [laughter] now, what we see -- >> i think this meeting was to inform the chief executive of the company of the likelihood of a change of ownership, a great
2:12 pm
iconic asset. i thought it was cried appropriate dash that i thought it was quite appropriate spent mrs. thatcher knew that was probable. one outcome was lower johnson might have close these two great titles, if you couldn't sell them. but there seems to be two purposes behind the lunch. one was to brief mrs. thatcher, give her your thoughts about what is described here as the embryonic and developing reagan administration. do you see that in paragraph two? >> yes, i think it shows at least the conversation, sometime me gossiping about australian and american politics. >> the three of you, if i can put it in this way, president-elect reagan, baroness
2:13 pm
thatcher and you were all of course on the same page politically, weren't you? >> i guess that's fair. yes, this was just before his inauguration. the meeting was. >> was part of the purpose of this meeting, if one could talk almost psychologically, to demonstrate to mrs. thatcher have very much you quote, one of us, one of us, baroness thatcher's terms, but was that part of your purpose of? >> no. >> of course you appreciated the importance of a face-to-face meeting. that's what you requested it, is that right? >> yes. >> and as mr. ingham says --
2:14 pm
>> not to tell her about mr. reagan. >> pardon me? >> the purpose was not to tell her about mr. reagan. >> paragraph format, the main purpose of mr. murdoch's visit was to brief the prime minister on his bid, that your gut, the times newspaper, and then you explained to her what your bid amounted to in financial terms and then you treat her to some speculation about who else have it, is that fair? >> yes. that was pure speculation. i don't think thompson told me about anything individually. >> why was it important to you that mrs. thatcher understand the nature and quality of your bid? >> well, as i said coming either
2:15 pm
this was the movement of the great institution, which under threat of closure, and i thought it was perfectly right that she should know what was at stake spent she knew that anyway, mr. murdoch. what were you seeking -- >> no, i don't believe she did no. great problems with unions, the extent of the costs, the risks. i'm not sure she was interested. >> were you seeking to demonstrate to her that you were the right man to acquire these great papers? because you had the qualities and charisma to take the papers forward, and equally important, you had the will to crush the union's? >> no, i did not the will to crush the unions. i might have had the desire. [laughter]
2:16 pm
but that took several years. >> well, if we substituted -- [inaudible] for will, are we in agreement? >> yes, i don't think that was this meeting particularly, but yes. we could get into the whole question of what led up to it. >> if you look at paragraph 10, mr. murdoch, 0169, you explain to mrs. thatcher that some 50 million of news corp. resources could be at risk, and the amounts could quite finish it. do you remember saying that? >> i don't remember saying that, but i probably did. it was a gross underestimate. >> and you talked about financial position of the times that you didn't mention, did
2:17 pm
you, the financial position of the sunday times? >> i said times newspapers. >> so you meant both, pardon me. was it your view that the sunday times was not economic as a growing concern? >> i didn't know. i thought that it certain had a great position on sunday. but it's the economics and its staff and everything were all entwined together at the times. resulted in a big net loss. >> did you look at the "sunday times" separately, as advised and as he knew, that in 1982 and onward the paper would make a profit, you knew that, didn't you? >> i didn't see that. i don't remember seeing it.
2:18 pm
but did it contribute a profit to the newspapers? yes. >> okay. finally, on this, paragraph 12, pages 1630, the prime minister thanked mr. murdoch for keeping her posted on his operations. she did no more than wish him well in his bid, noting the need for much improved arrangements in fleet street affecting man and the introduction of technology. so, you would wish to point out that no expressed favors were offered to you by mrs. thatcher, is that right? >> and none asked. i think if i asked for anything, mr. ingham very certainly would have recorded that. >> but you wouldn't have been so untapped and handed to ask you directly, would you, mr.
2:19 pm
murdoch? >> oh, god, i've never asked the prime minister for anything. >> formal sophisticated level, doesn't it? you see her, you seek to demonstrate to her, that you are precise on the same page politically as her, that you are one of us. and the understanding was that to the extent to which she might help, she would. is that not fair? >> no, i didn't expect any help from her. nor did i ask for any. >> were you concerned at this stage that you might not acquire the company's? >> oh, yes. it was quite easy i could've been outbid. >> or their could've been been every for old to the monopolies and mergers commission which would have -- >> that didn't worry me in delays, as i think my statement shows, and there's the backup material. i hope will be put on the web, along with this.
2:20 pm
>> yes, it's all well, mr. murdoch. you think mrs. thatcher for her lunch on the 15th of january. >> yes. i was slow in writing to her, yes. >> in another document shows, thompson's analysis was the view was favorite, the internal analysis of the perspective did because of your qualities as a manager, because of your youth and vigor, and various other factors. do you recall that? is in this bundle. >> i seen that letter, yes. >> in that stage, if i can deal with it shortly, the undertakings were offered by do, be please to look at those. they are i think at that seven of the bundle in front of you. kr -- krm six. excuse me. >> yes.
2:21 pm
>> do you have those? in particular, page 01467, which is the fourth undertaking headed maintenance of editorial independence. do you have that? >> yes. >> you undertook to bind yourself to preserve the separate identities of the times and the "sunday times," and to maintain the independence and authority of their editors in the appointment and the staff over the political policy of the separate newspapers, and then maintain the titles, editorial newspapers of high quality. did you accept, mr. murdoch, that the very fact -- [inaudible] to continue lord thomson's arrangement which exactly he made when he took those, put the two together. i did undertake to expand a number of independent areas from four to six. >> yes, you did. does the very fact that undertaking are offered itself
2:22 pm
is an indication that the power, the proprietors are capable of presenting over their editors? >> yes, i think sometimes it's underestimate but certainly they have power. let's face it, the editor,. [inaudible] is the response of the proprietor to step in. for the sake of the journalist, for the sake of everybody. and particularly his responsibility to his many thousands of shareholders. [inaudible] >> okay. the next stages on the 26th of january. thompson wrote to the secretary of state. i will just read it out. it is pages 1589. we can't ask too strongly that
2:23 pm
if there is a reference to the commission, the monopolist and mergers commission, that the news of the international postal, that proposal lapses because its conditions cannot be met. was that your understanding? >> that they wrote that? >> yes. >> yes. >> so if there were a reference, you would then come if the mmc allowed the dq procedure would then have to renegotiate, was that the position you are under? >> i saw, the record will show, and told him that i didn't mind it the least of any reference. that if they went on a long time, the paper bled a lot more money, i was right to renegotiate the price, yes. >> that's a fair summary, but it's right that the relevant --
2:24 pm
>> the captain minutes, which we have submitted, show that. >> we are taking it in stages, mr. murdoch. we will cover. the meanings of the -- the minuteminutes of the meeting isb 66 of this bundle. sorry, it's been placed in front of you. this is an important document. i don't think it is yet on the system. it can't be played. i think you're right about that. you were accompanied by your australian greek council i thi think. >> right. also at the time chairman of the company. if i am correct. >> you told mr. bitton, and i'm sure this is the point you wish to bring it, paragraph two of this minute, mr. murdoch said that the report that his bid would lapse, it was referred to the mmc was totally misleading.
2:25 pm
he claimed that when he said that he was merely responding to the thompson deadline, it would be difficult to negotiate to unions. they managed to do this. he was prepared to cooperate with mmc negotiation. at the same time he did point out it would create problems both for himself and it would delay his own negotiations for unions, and to thompson's, the uncertainty would cost on dash -- losses even greater. so fair interpretation of that is that you are not placing any obstacle in the way of a reference to the mmc, but you were pointing out the commercial disadvantages of such a reference, would you agree? >> if that note is right, then you are correct, yes spent the secretary of state position at this meeting was that he was minded to refer to the mmc,
2:26 pm
really for political reasons, if i can be forgiven for putting it in those terms. he felt that such an act would defuse any criticism of the paper. did he communicate that to you? >> i don't remember. >> you assumed he would not withdraw the bid if thompson agreed to extend their deadline. that was on hypothesis of a referral to the mmc? >> that is correct. >> his position at that stage, and we don't know what time of the date was on the 26th of january, was that he was minded to refer, and, of course, we cannot know what conversation, if anything he had with mrs. thatcher between that point in time and the cabinet meeting which took place later that afternoon. we are now back to krm 16.
2:27 pm
which i think is mr have a 17 of the first file. >> yes. >> some of the handwriting is quite small. i'm going to do my best to paraphrase is for the first pages 1637. the advice of the attorney general was that the general ruled under the fair trading act was there must be a reference and that both exceptions applied to name each paper was not a going concern and the matter was urgent. you look at page 01638, the type it gets smaller, the discussion and cabinet on the basis that the times was not economic as a
2:28 pm
going concern, but in relation to the "sunday times," the position was less clear-cut. and then there's a summary, he summarizes the effects of the meeting we had just seen which took place earlier that day. we can see why it was decided -- >> with me. >> yes. mr. bitner has actually summarized here that 66 which is a discussion he had with you. the real reason why they decided not to -- i'm sure it is in good faith that both editions were met. if you look on the right hand side, and discussion it was suggested that the secretary of state betrayed was referred to the bid to the mmc, it was unlikely that the thompson organization would in practice
2:29 pm
refused to extend the deadline come and circumstances, little advantage to be gained from a reference and considerable risk and cost in making it. that johnson or position the view that no alternative suitor made such a big. they were now reference where many concerned that this would enable authority to be put behind the undertakings. and that editorial freedom which mr. murdoch has already given. their concern on this count should be met should the secretary of state to usher them that if you give consent without reference he could in change these undertakings of his consent. so, one view might be that the cabinet decision -- >> will break away from the inquiry for a moment our live coverage of the u.s. senate began meeting and a pro forma session so no legislative business today. both senators have last for their memorial day recess.
2:30 pm
the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, may 25, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable al franken, a senator from the state of minnesota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, under the previous order, >> the senate meets again in pro forma on tuesday with legislative work the following monday. we return after the british
2:31 pm
inquiry. news corporation chairman and ceo rupert murdoch is testifying about his relationship with several high level current and former british politicians. >> the entry reads, the bottom of the page, very bottom of the page, tv, murdoch and stelzer and mr. campbell is causing that murdoch advisor. he had asked him outright whether they're going. murdock said the tories were unelectable and that was that. is this a faithful account of what happened, mr. murdoch? >> i have no memory of it at a all. i'm sorry i can't help you. >> might you have said the tories were unelectable? >> no, i don't think so.
2:32 pm
>> well, biasing unelectable human they were bound to lose, i think. >> if i said that, you keep putting words into my mouth, mr. jay spent i hope i don't. that's what mr. campbell is here for. >> yes, but you are putting in words. and i told you i have no memory of any such conversation. >> i'm not saying it's wrong. i just -- interpretation of what was said. >> thank you. it may be that mr. blair got to know you quite well by now, and did feel able to ask you out right with you going to back him. do you see that? >> i can't believe he was so direct as that.
2:33 pm
i met mr. blair, for the record, an average of two, 83 times, sometimes in a whole year. there was a constant brooch or ted asked -- daily text messages as happened with some newspapers. we had no such relationship. they were usually taken up, i remember, an afternoon at chequers where we spent the whole afternoon debating the euro. our remember what was there. and he didn't agree with me and glad to see that i turned out right. >> would be fair to you, mr. murdoch, your great concern was that the united kingdom might enter the euro? >> my feeling about it, if you want to debate the euro, was
2:34 pm
that it was a great application of power -- abdication of power. >> i'm not sure i do want to debate the euro, but what i do want just to establish, out of thursday, but that was your concern, wasn't it? the united kingdom might enter the euro? >> yes. it was a purely intellectual point of view. >> in march 2003 goal for, -- gulf war, all one understand the papers around the world, which you owned backed the war, didn't they? [inaudible] >> 175. >> that would include a lot of urban papers, which would have added you. but yes, we did support the war, as did most papers, including even "the new york times." >> some years after the events,
2:35 pm
it was discovered that were three telephone calls between you and mr. blair in march 2003, with the issue of the gulf war must have been discussed. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> well, it must have been around that time. it was such a big issue. i don't remember the calls. might have been calling me for my birthday. our position on the war had been clear, very strongly, and "the sun" well before that date. >> let's be clear, mr. murdoch. a discussion -- >> he wouldn't have been calling me for support. >> the discussion could not have been about whether you're going to sport him because as you rightly say, that support had already been given. the discussion must've been about something else. the version mr. --
2:36 pm
>> i don't think we can personalize it to mr. blair, but to the war. >> mr. wharton sleaze version and a book called the end of the party, page 160, was that you -- >> who is he? >> he is a political commentator, but in a sense it doesn't matter really what he says particularly whether you agree with this point, that you and mr. blair were devising the best strategy for attacking president sharad. do think that is what was discussed during these calls? >> i doubt it very much. >> why, mr. murdoch? why? spent i don't think mr. blair would come to me for advise on a matter like that. >> but why not? because you had -- >> why would he? he is certainly above talking
2:37 pm
about his current relations with france. it was well known that "the sun" was pretty rude about the french from time to time. >> well, the article in "the ine sun" about this time described resident shall rock as the french worm and a cheap person who puts price before principle. didn't have anything to do with you? >> no. >> the 2005 election, mr. murdoch, this is the last of their victories, did you make it a condition of support for the labour party that the government hold a referendum on the new e.u. constitution? >> no, we didn't make any conditions, but we certainly express the opinions strongly,
2:38 pm
that the e.u. constitution should be put to the people. and i don't think we've were burning. learning. as it happened, it would have to be because it depended on anonymity -- unanimity between the countries and all the countries. and one had voted against it so it was pointless to the referendum. >> in the end, as you rightly say, there was a referendum for the reasons you've given. but once said in another book about mr. richards at this time, that mr. blair held regular talks with erwin stelter, including talks on that issue. and mr. stilts or would've been communicate in your views, is that right or not? >> no. mr. stilts was an distinguished economist. >> but in no sense was he communicating your views into
2:39 pm
the prime minister, is that -- >> no. no, well, you don't know what he was or wasn't. >> he may have been, i don't know. >> that's the point. but it would be something you would talk to him about. >> if i sing a lot of them. >> that's a point. you've all respond result in very, very highly of him therefore that's a sort of thing you might very well discuss. >> yes, sir. >> my only point in answering esther j. was he was not carrying a message from me. >> i understand. i'm sure doctor erwin stelzer felt the phillies would have his own ideas on this and every other topic. in one sense he would know you're thinking and he would be able to discuss that with mr. blair, wouldn't he?
2:40 pm
>> probably, yes. he was closer to mr. andrew neil and he was to me. >> okay. now, mr. blair leaves in 2007. he just had a view as to who's should succeed him -- did you have a view as to who should succeed him? >> i thought the matter was set. >> well, according to mr. blair's biography, page six under 65, i don't think it's necessary to turn a. mr. blair's view is there was no contest for the leadership, john reed could have served. i share -- just wrote him off. do you remember doing that? >> no, that's quite untrue. i had met with mr. read a couple times and i like him very much.
2:41 pm
>> but you didn't write -- >> i didn't know he was -- [inaudible] >> thank you. now, you relations with mr. brown, until the 30th of september 2009, which was when "the sun" as it were dropped him and supported the conservatives were quite warm, weren't they? >> my personal relationship with mr. brown was always warm. >> before he became prime minister and after. and i regret that after "the sun" came at him, not so true. although i don't think it can be repaired. >> there may have been a number of reasons why your personal
2:42 pm
relations occurred, but one obvious, perhaps, which are common presbyterian upbringing, is that right? >> yes. >> can we see if we can possibly explore one of the myths you mentioned. we know that you stay that chequers the weekend of the sixth and seventh of october 2007, or at least they're on one of those days. do you remember that? >> was that the pajama party weekend? >> no. [laughter] that's the 14th of june 2008, mr. murdoch. [laughter] this is -- >> i do remember being once, at least, but i think only once at chequers as a guest of mr. and mrs. brown, and they were certainly other people there. because i remember standing -- my memory was that was the first
2:43 pm
time i met jk rowling. it was a close friend, at least of mrs. brown. spent to you have any discussions with mr. brown about whether they should be a map election? >> no. >> were you unaware of the -- >> let me say, i don't remember. >> there is evidence, somewhere, i think in mr. walmsley -- >> if any politician wanted my opinion on the major matter, they only had to rea read the editorials in "the sun." >> well, mr. walmsley, says the decision to call off this election was taken before the sixth of october, so he's right. you could have discussed it with mr. brown. maybe we can't really --
2:44 pm
>> but -- >> others have suggested it. we have heard your evidence on the topic, mr. murdoch. i'm not going to press that any further. can i move forward with mr. brown? june 2008, we can take just one month. the documents demonstrate that you had dinner with mr. brown on the sixth of june and a respective wives were present to you except that? >> yes. >> fourteenth of june was the famous slumber party where, i don't believe you were present. >> i think they were just a bunch of women. complaining about their husbands probably. >> yes. 50 the june you and mr. brown were guests at downing street jennifer president bush, do remember that? >> yes.
2:45 pm
>> about 30 or 40 people there, wouldn't there? >> yes. i'm sure there were other people there, and the press. >> sixteenth of june, mr. brown attends your annual slumber party. >> yes. i think the. -- i think so. >> and were you involved in any way in the timing of the decision support the conservative party on 31st of september, 1989? >> no. i was not. i don't know the exact timing. we certainly had talks over a period. my son james and mrs. brooks, no doubt others, that we felt this government have made a lot of mistakes and we had a long
2:46 pm
period of labour rule. it was time for a change. >> and you, along with many others, were working out with mrs. brown was likely to lose the next election? >> no. i didn't know. spent well, mr. murdoch, one can't know because one can't read the future. there are certainties -- >> but you are asking me to spend your best guess, mr. murdoch, along with others, and informed guess, was that mr. brown was going to lose, wasn't he? >> the election was a long way away. i had no idea. you know, as many people have said, a week is a long time in politics. [inaudible] >> may i just deal with one piece of evidence, the inquiry
2:47 pm
you receive from mr. mckinsey. mr. mckinsey told us that mr. brown spoke to you on the phone. this was on or shortly after the 30th of september, 2009. and he, mr. brown, said to him, spoke you for more than 20 minutes. is that true or not? >> i'm afraid that i'm very happy to think about the conversation, but mr. mckinsey might have talked about it at dinner. i occasionally see him. that was a very colorful exaggeration. mr. brown did call me, and said rupert, will you, do you know what's going on here? and i said, what do you mean? he said, well, "the sun" and
2:48 pm
what it's doing and how it came out. and i'm not aware of, i was not warned of the exact timing. i'm not aware of what they are saying. i'm a long, long away. but i'm sure to tell you, gordon, we have come to conclusion that we will support a change of government when and if there is an election. not win. -- not if, when there is an election. and he said, i must stress, no voices were raised. we were talking more quietly than you and i are now. he said, well, your company has made, declared war on my government, and we have no alternative than to make war on your company. >> you can see rupert murdoch's
2:49 pm
entire testimony in c-span video library at c-span.org. testimony by former "news of the world" editor rebekah brooks when we return to the british inquiry into the relationship between politicians and the media. she talks about her contact with former prime ministers tony blair who testified before the inquiry next week. >> this memorial day weekend, three days of american history tv on c-span3. saturday morning at nine eastern actors from hbo's band of brothers joint easy company veterans and the 101st. >> i said what is it was you have given me everything to jump with. he said, we're jumping. i said, yes. okay. what's that got to do with me? he said, let me tell you something. how much do you weigh? i said 138 pounds. how tall are you?
2:50 pm
i said fight feat for an epic you have to put that have ended there. i said, because i am five, four and a half. the reason you got that, we don't want to go looking for you in spain. [laughter] spent also sunday night at 9:30 p.m. woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt, william taft and eugene debs, the legacy of the 1912 presidential election. and monday night at nine, -- >> september 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy spent perl the pearl harbor's visitor center, three days of american history tv. this holiday weekend on c-span3. >> welcome to old cow town museum, wichita, kansas.
2:51 pm
>> a film here in the city of wichita. waking up the city for 22 years. we think with a heckuva start and that's why we will be talking about the problem we're having in a city with taxicabs. hang on for that if you will. >> june 2 and 3rd, booktv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> we are a rather modest looking people, but what it contains is an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only as it says here for members immediate use only. they were not supposed to loan this out because, as you can see, it would tell you exactly where everybody lived. so you could go and buttonholed in and punch him if he didn't
2:52 pm
like him. >> watcher booktv and american history tv in wichita on june 2 and 3rd on c-span2 and three. >> now, former "news of the world" editor rebekah brooks testifies before the british inquiry into their relationship between politicians and the media. she talks about her contact with former british prime minister tony blair. he is scheduled for next to testify before the leveson in korea. 25 minute portion begins with her rise to the corporation. >> since timeline of your career, mrs. brooks, could you tell me if i make any mistakes that you join this international on the same magazine of the news of the wrote in 1989, is that white? >> that's right spent 1995 you were appointed deputy editor of the "news of the world" under mr. hall. 1998 appointed deputy editor of "the sun" under mr. yellin. and in may 2000 editor of the
2:53 pm
"news of the world" page 31, is that right? >> yes, that is right. >> editor of "the sun," january i think 2003? >> yes. >> ceo of news international -- can we be clear of the dates here? there's been some doubt about it. with the announcement of your appointment in june 2009 that you took a the job comment on the -- >> that's correct spent and then you resigned on the 17th of july 2011. >> fifteenth. >> fifteenth is right. and so we're completely clear about the constraint, bearing on your evidence, you are under investigation in the context of operation, also for perverting the course of justice, is that
2:54 pm
true? >> yes. >> mrs. brooks, i'm grateful to you for the obvious care you put in the statements that you made, and i'm conscious of the difficulty the time must be for you. >> the other constraints which now fall upon you may relate to documents, including e-mails and texts, or more particularly their asses but i ask you please look at paragraph 30 of your second witness statement in which is our vision 02577. >> yes. >> you make it clear that you have had reference to a diary which is kept by your former p.a., and namely what sort of direct we're talking about, isn't an ordinary desk a diary or is it an alastair campbell type a diary? >> no, definitely not an alastair campbell.org. it is my old desk diaries, so the appointments in their are not the complete picture, and it's difficult to know actually
2:55 pm
some of the meetings to play tricks are done my best to give you a schedule. it's more of a flavor and spice direct. >> the schedule of appointments but it's not a narrative of what was discussed on any particular location, is that fair? >> yes. >> paragraph 31, mrs. brooks, you say the news international you had no access to your work e-mails. however, the e-mail text that while my blackberry blackberry at the time i left news international imaged and saved. does it follow that your work e-mail account was blocked to you in summer, or do something different happens because no, i think it was blocked on the day i left. >> when you say the blackberry e-mail text were imaged and saved, can you tell us approximately when those events occurred at? >> so, my blackberry was imaged by my legal team when his return
2:56 pm
from the nbs, and they contained i think about six weeks of e-mails, and less of text but about a month of text. that we had to image them and we have problems with that. >> approximately when you're blackberry was returned by the mps? >> i think about three weeks later. maybe longer. >> can you give us the month please so that we -- >> i'm sorry, in july. >> 2011. and so we have as you explained e-mails and texts which only cover a limited period from the beginning of june 2011 and tail, you say the 17th of july, maybe the 15th of july, the 17th of july. >> i think it was the 17th. >> he also confirmed is nothing relevant to this inquiry in your private accounts for which you are referring to private e-mail accounts, is that right? >> that's correct.
2:57 pm
>> doesn't follow then that any e-mail you might have had with politicians would only have been through your personal e-mail accounts be quick that's correct spent in a text message contact with politicians would only have been on your blackberry, which was a work blackberry? there was no other mobile phone? >> correct. >> okay. been asked to put you this question. whether any e-mails or texts from either mr. chairman or mr. osborne on your blackberry at the time you left news international? >> no. although one, when we got the image back, there was one from mr. cameron that was compressed in june, but no content in it. >> so it's a complete mystery of anything in my content, is that right? did you receive messages or commiseration or support from politicians in july 2011 in
2:58 pm
particular? >> some. >> either directly or indirectly, is that right? >> mainly indirectly. >> in order to get a fair picture, since we focus on one individual alone, the picture would logically be distorted. are you able to assist us with from whom you receive messages because i had some indirect messages from some politicians but nothing direct. >> the direct ones, who were the politicians of? >> sam torrance, a couple labour politicians, very few labour politicians. spent can we be a bit more specific? >> i'm not trying to be evasive. i received some indirect messages from number 10, number 11, home office, foreign office.
2:59 pm
>> so you are talking about secretaries of state, prime minister, chancellor exchequer, aren't you? >> those who work in those offices as well. >> labour politicians, how about that? >> like i say, there were very few labour politicians spent okay. mr. blair, did he send you one? >> yes, it spent but probably not mr. brown? >> no. probably getting the bunting o out. >> it has been reported in relation to mr. cameron from, who knows whether it is true, that you received a message of support along the lines, keep your head up. is that you are not? >> from? >> from mr. cameron, indirectly. >> yes. i did see it in the times. along those lines figure was
3:00 pm
more, i don't think that was, those were the exact words but along the lines spent but is the just right? >> yes. but it was indirect. it wasn't indirect. >> did you also receive a message from him along these lines, so, i could not have been as long as -- but mr. ed miliband had me on the run, or words to that effect? >> similar. but again, very indirectly. ..
3:01 pm
>> mr. cameron also said publicly, we all got to play to news international or words to that effect. has he ever communicated that to you personally? >> no. >> and about mr. murdoch, the background. we know he told the house of lords communication committee, this is back in 2007, when you were spoken to a think in new york. he was a traditional proprietor. he exercised editorial control on major issues by which in a general election or policy. do you agree with that are or not. >> yes. >> did apply as much to the "news of the world" as it applied to the "sun"? >> i think mr. murdoch is probably more interested in the
3:02 pm
"sun" in terms of political issues but it also applies to the "news of the world" as well. >> now your evidence, question 1461, i think it would be fair to say that before any appointment he knew me pretty well. do you stand by that? >> yes. particularly before my appointment. >> yes 2003 and probably in 2000 when you were appointed editor of the news of the robe are not? >> less so. >> and question 1462 you would be aware of my views both social views, counsel views and political views. again do you stand by that or not? >> and then you said take your upper example. mr. murdoch was absolutely aware of my views on europe. before i became editor of the "news of the world" --
3:03 pm
>> yes. >> without delving into this and any great detail, your views on europe presumably you are a skeptic. correct? >> yes. >> and politically, your position is fairly similar to mr. murdoch's isn't that? >> in some areas, yes. >> which areas do they differ? >> we disagreed about quite a few things. more in margins of that it rather than the principles so the environment, dna database, immigration, celebrity in the paper versus serious issues, columnists, the front side, i mean you know we had a lot of disagreements. but in the main, main, on the
3:04 pm
big issues. >> on the amount of celebrity again, whether each -- where did each of you stand on that? >> i like more celebrity and he wanted more serious issues. >> and why did you want more celebrity? >> well, i liked -- i thought the readers were quite interested in looking at the viewing figures of bbc or itv to see this liberty programs, the reality programs that do so well and i took from those figures that our readers are quite interested in. he didn't like much of it although he liked the x-factor. >> i'm not going to pry into this too much but are you a strong believer in human rights and human rights factor? >> not particularly, no.
3:05 pm
in its form, obviously its existence absolutely but there are parts of the human rights actively campaigned against at the "sun" when i was at one point the conservative party was going to repeal this and replace it with a british bill of rights. i think that was the case but i think that has now been dropped. >> we are going to come back to that issue in a more specific context. when you were appointed editor of the "news of the world" in 2000 was that mr. murdoch's decision? >> i was told by les hansen that i was going to be made editor of the "news of the world" and i did not speak to mr. murdoch until after that. >> but was it his decision? >> i think it was mr. hinton's strong recommendation and like i said i did not speak to mr. murdoch. >> there was some discretion -- discussion on the seminar --
3:06 pm
[inaudible] spano, i am sorry. with the editorial line you took in particular with the relation to the "sun" reflects mr. murdoch's thinking? >> well i think as a same eyewitness statement, it really is important to differentiate between mr. murdoch thinking, my thinking, the political thinking and the thinking of the readers. i mean i know i spent a lot of time in my witness statement but to get across the point that you know, it was the readers views that were always reflected in any policy or politician or political party. so i'd know mr. murdoch when he gave evidence they want to know -- read the the "sun" editorial but i don't think he was being totally literal about that. >> but the evidence was exactly he wants -- those were his exact
3:07 pm
words that he used. whether he will guard it or not is not for me to say that it was a considered response to mr. leveson. >> i don't think it was guarded. i'm just saying i don't think it was literal. >> why not been? >> because there were lots of things in the "sun" that would not reflect his views. >> on the big points, would you agree with that? paragraph 12 of your witness statement, you give us a little thumbnail sketch of what the "sun" is and what it represents and what its cultural values are embodies an attitude you say rather than a particular social flair. then you say sometimes the
3:08 pm
relationship between the "sun" and its readers reflects the national conversation and he wanted to know what the nation was talking about we would look at the "sun." but we have a bit of a contrast here. some would say if you want to know what mr. murdoch is thinking of the "sun," then you are saying if you want to know what the nation is talking about look at the "sun." which is correct? >> the one in my witness statement. >> why do you say that? >> because i believe it. >> what do you mean by that? >> i think if you accept that the "sun" for many many years has been the biggest newspaper in the country and the saturday sun overtook the "news of the world" a think i think about five years ago and they be longer actually in circulation terms. so you have this huge readership and i don't know what the exact figure is today but the paper
3:09 pm
next to that is the daily mail so i am basing it on such a large percentage of the british population who would come in contact with the "sun" and may not read it everyday but they would come in contact with the "sun" at some point. >> you are addressing a different point because it seems as a nation -- is a genius which is in. the bigger the readership is the more diverse its views are and the more singular its views are. >> ids to that point and i make it later on again in my witness statement which is, and this was touched on in the inquiry broadcast media has become more and more influential and warm port and over newspapers because its effect that newspaper circulation in the printed form are declining so i do accept that. it was meant to really say if for example the conversation in
3:10 pm
the past or the conversation -- that conversation, that will be talked about and that is what i meant by national conversation. it wasn't meant to be taken any more literally than that irk us be the reflection then, not a reflection of the individual collected views of the readership. is that a fair description? >> no, not particularly. >> i am really leading into paragraph 15 mrs. brooks and the myth which you seek to explode that newspaper editors are an unelected force. that is true, isn't it?
3:11 pm
>> i don't think it is, no. >> who elected you? >> we are not elected officials. >> you are saying it is the myth that it is a truth isn't it? newspaper editors are an unelected force aren't they? >> if you view them as that. i don't view editors as unelected forces. >> how do you view them then? >> journalists. >> but isn't the point you were really making in paragraph 15 knots a much about the unelected force. one could talk about and on elected undemocratic whatever if it's relevant. it gets that you are shaping in changing government policy to suit your own interest. is that the myth you are really talking about? >> that was also what i was suggesting, yes. >> but there is no doubt or perhaps you would disagree, that
3:12 pm
newspaper editors and proprietors are a powerful force they have a voice, they have a megaphone. >> i think, i understand sir what you are saying. i think what i'm trying to say is that newspapers like the "sun" is you have to, your power is your readership. and individual power or it's a readership hour so i think that is really important. i think tony gallagher the editor of the telegraph said if you fell under a bus you know, the power of his office would go. and i think just adding to his point, i think at the "sun," the readers are the most powerful. trying to reflect there and justices and their concerns that we try and tackle that interest we try and engage in. so i just don't see, i think i
3:13 pm
can't remember what the question was but i was more reacting to the fact that every day the readers cannot elect us at the newspaper's. >> yes, we have heard that several times but i think we discussed this yesterday and certainly in the recent past, that the extent to which editors are reacting and the extent to which they can in fact lead opinion. they have got to reflect the overall position of their readership. i understand that. they can suddenly go out on a limb when they know they will follow them but they are in a position to lead opinion. would you agree with that? >> i think you can present issues to the readership, yes. that is part of being an editor. >> and you presented with a
3:14 pm
certain spin, don't you? >> well, depending on the paper, yes. i wouldn't say spend. i would say attitude. >> or perspective than. >> okay. >> you mentioned the "sun" was an attitude in and a particular social class. when you edited the "news of the world" we had evidence yesterday by mr. colson the contact mr. murdoch had with -- would your evidence be similar to mr. colson's or different in that way, the amount of contact in the sort of discussions? >> what the mr. colson say? >> it ferried that it was on saturday evening if at all. it might be twice a month and it might be less often than that. >> i am sure that is right at
3:15 pm
the "news of the world," yes. >> and he was interested in the big stories, wasn't he? >> occasionally, yes. i mean mr. murdoch's contact with the "news of the world" was much more limited than the "sun" or the newspaper. >> when you became editor of the "sun" which was in 2003, paragraph 25 of your statement, you say you believe mr. murdoch was instrumental in your appointment, was that right? >> yes. >> did you know that to be true? >> i know that to be true. >> how often would he speak to you when you were editor of the "sun"? >> very frequently. >> give us an idea of. >> well, it wasn't a regular
3:16 pm
pattern. sometimes it could be every day. sometimes if something else was going on around the world it would be less than that but very frequently. >> even when he was in this country, is that right? >> mainly when he wasn't in the country, yes. >> you said you had a close relationship with mr. murdoch and various stories abound. you said you used to swim together when he was in london. is that true? >> i didn't. >> november 2005, we have recorded you were arrested for alleged assault on your ex-husband. you recall that no doubt? >> i do recall that. >> i think you have been to the 42nd birthday party of matthew freud that evening, hadn't you? >> i don't know if that was the first -- date. >> so evidently other members of
3:17 pm
the murdoch family would have been there wouldn't they? >> i can't remember. not particularly. >> mr. rupert murdoch was there, wasn't he? >> no, he wasn't. said that you met him waiting for breakfast meeting the following morning. is that true? and you sent it dressed to the police station. so this is all fiction then? >> completely. where's it where is it from? >> various sources. [laughter] confidential sources in the public domain actually, but i am not expecting on the reliability. may be leading up to a question later on in relation to all of this. there is evidence i have seen that there was a 40th birthday party for you and mr. murdoch's
3:18 pm
house. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and were there politicians present on that occasion? >> yes, some. >> mr. cameron and mr. blair were present weren't they? >> it was a surprise party for me, so i know mr. blair was there. i am not sure if mr. cameron was. >> we will show more from rebekah brooks's testimony in a minute. she was questioned about party she attended with political figures. tony blair files -- testifies before the leveson --
3:19 pm
's. >> dialogue with the north koreans on human rights is kind of the ridiculous dialogue because you can tell them you need to improve your human rights situation in their response to you will be, and we have had this conversation at the official level, the response will be you in the united states have human rights problems too. i mean, that is not a comparable discussion. >> life is incredibly precious and it passes by far too quickly. so during your time here, use all of your unique god-given talents deserve one another and that'll be the true measure by
3:20 pm
which your life will be judged. follow the golden rule. >> more from rebekah brooks's testimony before the british inquiry into the relationship between the media and politicians. mrs. brooks was editor of the now closed "news of the world" tabloid and is promoted the head of news international. in this position she is questioned about a party in greece where she met with david cameron, who is now british prime minister. this is about an hour and a half. >> you were there in greece presumably on holiday with the murdoch family? there was nothing more to it than that come is that right? >> yes it was for -- elizabeth
3:21 pm
birthday. >> and you presumably met with mr. cameron on that occasion when he was increased? >> i did, yes. >> do you remember how long he stayed? >> i think it was an afternoon and an evening. >> were you witness to any of the conversations which took place or not? >> yes, i was witness to one about mr. murdoch about europe, because we were in europe and very general terms but then he had subsequent -- so i wasn't around. >> so there were a number of conversations on possibly a number of topics? >> it wasn't a formal sitdown
3:22 pm
conversation, however the one was witness to, happened to be there when theyere talking about europe. i was brought into the conversation because it was on europe. >> was this the occasion that you are pleased about or not? >> well it seems to, a very cordial meeting and like i said it lasted for an afternoon or an evening so it wasn't reticular the long. >> by that point, you are quite friendly with mr. -- with mr. cameron, weren't you? >> yes. >> we note from your list in 2008 he attended a new year's eve party at your farm, didn't he, your husband's farm? >> not at our home.
3:23 pm
it was my sister-in-law's party. >> so -- >> the point i was just trying to make is the brooks family had a family connection with the cameron's before i came along, so i just wanted to make that distinction. >> is the distinction that mr. cameron is only a friend of the brooks family or are you accepting that mr. cameron became your friend? [inaudible] >> and looking further down this list, on the third of may, 2009 -- [inaudible] from that point of course there is no evidence that you were meeting with mr. brown. is that fair? you did say your list may not be complete with a relationship with mr. brown.
3:24 pm
>> i know my list is incomplete and particularly, i am not sure i am sure tony brown and tony blair had to release their formal and informal meetings and i'm pretty sure if they had, there will be missing downing street with mr. brown from that period in may right up until september. i don't know how many. >> the topic of conversation on the third of may, 2009, do you remember any specific events? did it cover political issues? >> it would have done in general. probably there were other people there at the lunch but again in may of 2009, as i say i'm not quite sure if my memory is correct but i'm pretty sure that the european constitution debate was shelby say at large as well as afghanistan at the time.
3:25 pm
so they may have been two issues. >> we know that on the ninth of september, 2009, mr. james murdoch told mr. cameron that the "sun" would support the conservative party in the next election and the headline was on the front page. i think it was on the 30th of september of 2009. when did you first know that shift would take place? >> to the conservative party? >> yes, i can give you the day when james murdoch told mr. cameron back in september 2009. when did you first know that shift would take place? >> if we put aside the timing of it, i think probably in june of
3:26 pm
2009 and rupert murdoch and james murdoch started to have discussions because i think by that stage, and that was part of the reneging on the referendum. it was post a campaign election and it was, i think one of my last from pages that i edited of the "sun" was don't you know there is a bloody war on and the point of this was there didn't seem to be one politician including a prime minister who is willing to address the issues the issues we were facing out there. so i think that was. >> the question with a simple one. it gave me the answer. it was june 2009 and you kind of expanded upon it. there were conversations, use it to murdoch's and mr. cameron. is that in a nutshell? >> yes.
3:27 pm
>> was any part of the discussion about who was likely to win the next election? >> i think back in june the main discussion, which is why i tried to give you the back round so you could understand the context, was that it was more that we had lots of things to support in gordon brown's government and what did that mean. so there were initial discussions in june. >> win when the discussions occurred which must have arisen by the ninth of september, 2009, was any part of the decision based on who would win the next election? >> it was much more in that summer and where they stood in terms of the policies there were
3:28 pm
lots of issues that we were concerned about and the main point this summer was the fact that we probably hadn't written one editorial in support of the labour government's for quite some time. it wasn't as clearly covered. >> i'm not saying it was. the question was was any part of the discussion related to the next election? >> and a general sense it would have been but only a part of it as i can't remember what the polls were at the time. i think the tories were in the lead then. >> from your perspective, is it true that you are marrying the views of your readers and by definition you would he interested in how they were
3:29 pm
going to vote in the next election? do you see the logic there? >> the issue which i think is probably one of the most interesting things about its readership is the amount -- so i think in the "sun" it is quite important. we would do internal polls to research as to where our readers were changing but the overwhelming feedback from the readership at that time was that they were very unhappy with the lot they had. >> back to the wider.where you mirror the opinion of you readers and what you have any interest on the formation of their opinion. baby at that point i will come back to you. if you look at the list of meetings, there is also a meeting with david cameron the
3:30 pm
21st of september 2009 and james and catherine murdoch. do you remember if anyone else was present? >> i can't i'm afraid. there would have been other people present, maybe people from the office, but not particularly that one. i think we had one dinnerware there were some military chiefs there. i'm not sure if that was the one. >> at that dinner was there any discussion as to the timing of the "sun"'s change in support? >> no, we did not -- >> did mr. cameron at any stage now the timing? >> probably he knew it was within a period of time from the
3:31 pm
drink that you referred to that he had with james murdoch that it would happen but absolutely not on the timing. >> can we see how specific we can be? was he told that he would be within the party conference season? >> no, i don't think so. >> what the was he told? >> well i wasn't there at the drink that he hate with james murdoch that james murdoch's information was this is what the "sun" will probably do in the timing was a matter of discussion with me and the editor and the political team they are and james and rupert murdoch said the timing, the conversation was not with david cameron or his advisers. >> so the news international team really from the top to the editorial level with you in the
3:32 pm
middle as it were a ceo were responsible for the timing of the decision, is that right? >> in terms of the party conferences, yes. >> did you play the major role there at first? >> i was certainly instrumental in it. ultimately you know, mr. murdoch is the boss and i was instrumental in it as was the editors at murren. >> the final decision made by rupert murdoch, are you the driving force behind it or not? >> no, i was instrumental rather than the driving force. it was pretty collected in terms of everyone's views particularly the readership you but everyone's view that we were going from the labour party that we supported for many years, but
3:33 pm
in terms of the timing was probably quite -- >> and you are part of that small-group? >> yes. >> of course the timing was careful inasmuch as it succeeded mr. brown's conference, didn't it? >> it did. >> and rightly or wrongly cost him political damage, would you agree? >> the discussion on the timing was this, which is, it would be terribly unfair at the start of a party conference to say that before hearing what mr. brown and his cabinet ministers had to say. for all we knew they could've come up with a fantastic policy for some readers, i mean anything. so i think it was unfair to go
3:34 pm
before. >> are you essentially saying that mr. brown might've said something that would cause the "sun" to change their mind to go back to plan a? >> no i'm not saying that. what i'm saying is that woods on fair to cloud a party conference in that way, so that was the reason for the timing. nothing before. i think you heard from mr. colson yesterday that the conservative party, if they had their way they would have liked the endorsement at the beginning of their conference, but the main and the sole reason for it is we were absolutely ready to do that in the party conference season but the reason for that night is mr. brown's speech which i can't remember how long it lasted, the key was that he spent less than two minutes on afghanistan, and we felt that
3:35 pm
was the right timing in order to -- >> you must must have made the decision before you heard his speech. there is nothing in his speech which made imprints to the timing. >> i told you more -- i thought her we thought it was fair not to do at the beginning of the party conference. they probably wouldn't say it like that but at the time -- >> you say the consideration of fairness is no indication of how important the decision you are taking was. would you agree? >> i think from the sun -- "sun" 's view, it was an incredibly important decision that the "sun" made in 1997 after many many years of tory support. >> the question is about the decision in 2009.
3:36 pm
>> the ancient history is quite important in this matter because i think you are you're asking for an explanation and so i think that it was a very important decision and we did give it careful consideration. after many years of labor support. >> and you knew that the decision would -- certain people, didn't you? >> the labour party? >> well obviously. >> what the demeaned and? >> i meant individuals within the labour party as well. you knew that, didn't you? >> well, yes. >> did you sense in any way that this was the exercise of power concentrated not on you personally, but at least in a small group of people within news international who of course you have named? >> i think, i don't think we
3:37 pm
have the source, no. [inaudible] >> i don't think we have ever seen it in those terms. >> why not? >> because rightly or wrongly, i believe and have leaved throughout my career that i was, my main responsibility was to the readership and that any influence that we could come to bear harmful to their concern was the most important thing. and that is just the way it was. so i don't think we saw it like that. yes in answer to your question we knew there would be certain individuals in the labour party that would not be happy with that decision. >> you have identified -- our responsibility is to mr. murdoch and mr. james murdoch was a party to it. you were instrumental to use
3:38 pm
your term? was he contributing much to this debate mrs. brooks or not? >> yes, of course. >> all five of you in different ways exercise considerable power, would you agree? >> i think that on the part of me and mr. cavanagh and the political editor -- editor and the journalists, i think we were all of the mind that this was the right thing to do for the paper and for our readership. we just didn't see it in those terms so i'm sorry. >> you don't see the intrusion? the dissemination of power from within a few people impacted on the opinions of many people.
3:39 pm
do you see that as perhaps being at least a possibility? >> i can see how you can phrase it like that and many other critics do so too, but from our own perspective the "sun" newspaper has in its history always done sort of quite dramatic endorsements. is like the paper. it's strong, it's punchy, it tells it as it is. when you reach an opinion it's pretty obvious and you know from the vatican chimney of smoke to calvin was the last person, turn out the lights, you know we have had a tradition and a history of being bold and dramatic in our timing when came to politics. we didn't see it in the terms you are saying it as but i know the critics to. >> we know you had conversations
3:40 pm
where you spoke to mr. brown with relation to the decision. before ask you about those did you try to speak to mr. cameron before the headline went out? >> no, i didn't. i was busy. [inaudible] >> my main concern was trying to speak to mr. brown. >> why was he a high priority to mr. cameron? >> because i felt it was the right thing to do to speak to mr. brown before anybody else? >> with what motive? >> well i think general courtesy but i think it was the right thing to do and also mr. brown and his wife agreed to come to the news international party that night, and i wanted to get a hold of them beforehand. >> did you leave text messages
3:41 pm
on the mobile phones of mr. brown and lord mendelson? >> i think a series is too strong a word. i left messages with them, yes. >> to mr. brown to speak to you urgently, with that at? >> i requested to speak to him, later in the afternoon, sorry. >> you have probably seen lord mandelson and that he eventually did speak to you, didn't he? >> yes, he did. >> and there is a slight difference as to one word that was used which we had better not go into. >> the chump word, yes. that is what he claimed to have said, yes. >> was he angry or not? >> depending on how you heard
3:42 pm
it, chump can be quite inoffensive words so he seemed quite angry. but not surprised. >> as you said, your coverage had been unfavorable to the government for some time, hadn't at? >> yes. >> did you have any conversation with mr. brown on or before september 29? >> i did have a conversation with mr. brown and i think it was in october rather than that night or that week. >> so within a week? >> no, i think it was a few weeks after. >> why did it take you so long to speak to him?
3:43 pm
>> well, i had tried to speak to him that night and i had spoken to lord mandelson instead. it was clear that there was nothing more to say at that point. >> alright. >> i didn't think you wanted to talk to me. >> when he did speak to them eventually can you remember anything about that conversation? >> i remember quite clearly because it was in response to the "sun" had splashed on a letter that gordon brown had written to the mom whose son had died in afghanistan and there were spelling mistakes in address the wrong name but the sun had been particularly harsh to him all over -- over it and i spoke to him. either that day or the next day,
3:44 pm
can't remember. >> was said at his instigation or yours do you recall? >> he bring me. >> can you remember anything about the conversation? >> yes i can because it was quite tense. >> so what was said then? >> it was a private conversation but the tone of the was very aggressive and quite rightly he was hurt by the projection and the headlines that have been put on the story, and i think also quite rightly in his defense that he suspected or thought that this may be his way in which the "sun" was going to behave and i assured him it was a mistake. the headline was too harsh and this was not the way the paper was going to behave. >> you had no have no longer ben the editor's?
3:45 pm
>> no but i had spoken to the editor very early on when i saw the headlines and we have discussed it at length. and we came to that conclusion. >> you told mr. -- [inaudible] >> i thought that mr. brown's concerns that the "sun" coverage was going to be a personal attack was understandable and i thought that would be wrong. >> that is what politicians fear the most in the "sun" is nick, and attack so they "sun" has quite often indulged in it to you agree? >> no. i think the fact that it resulted in such an extraordinarily aggressive conversation between me and mr. brown shows that it actually doesn't. i remember it very clearly and the nature of it.
3:46 pm
no, so i don't think that. >> the personal attack from the "sun" has been a factor in what politicians do or don't do. you know that mrs. brooks, don't you? >> i think that neal kinnick mayfield that about the "sun" but i am not sure that the paper has been like that for a wild. >> for how long? >> i just don't think it is concentrated on the personal -- occasionally depending on the story that would happen but in the main i think the "sun" concentrated on the issues and the policy and the campaigns rather than attacking just for the sake of personal attacks and i think mr. brown felt that letter was a purely personal
3:47 pm
attack. >> allegedly holding politicians to account by prying intrusively into their personal lives. that has been part of the -- at the "sun" hasn't at? >> obviously i'm going to object to prying intrusively. the whole point that newspapers or the -- general shall we say hold politicians to account on occasion has been found to be intrusive but that is not the policy. >> these are elaborations then? >> i think that when a newspaper oversteps a line, that i've heard criticism on papers that i have edited and others that privacy is a hugely debated topic. but your question, your premise was that this was the culture. and i was just disputing that.
3:48 pm
>> it is a source of manifestation of the power that the "sun" and other high circulation newspapers can exercise off into the personality of the editors. would you accept that are not? >> what was the question? >> the manifestation of the power by circulation newspapers exercise through the personality of their editors. it is the fear that if the politician departs from what the paper once there may be a personal attack? >> i don't think it is fair to say that politicians live in fear of newspapers. they are highly motivated and ambitious people. i don't think that is fair that they live in fear of power. and because i believe that the power of a paper is its readership, and i know, but that
3:49 pm
is what i believe. that would be like saying they are fearful of the readership or the electric. >> you this is sort of a recurring theme in what you are saying is that it all flows up the tree which is you and then emitted out that you have no role in seeing any of this, is that right? >> i suppose that the point of me being here is to give the inquiry some explanation of how the newspapers i edited worked and it was true that the readership was at the very center of that paper and so am going against that readership and that is why i'm saying it is not a particular individual or a particular individual editor that has the power. it's just a paper. >> after you have a piece which
3:50 pm
some would say is personal and we are talking about mr. brown's piece, but what happens? does your inbox fill up with e-mails of affirmation or is there deathly silence? what happens? >> in extreme circumstances, going over the history, numbers of people can stop by at the newspaper. in terms of that particular story, i think i wasn't on the paper at the time so i think i do remember that a negative reaction from the readers although they felt we should probably take the time to spell the name of a grieving widow correctly and certainly indeed there was some sort of -- overall they felt that leads to a have taken the time to do it. i think that is probably fair.
3:51 pm
and overwhelming reaction but yes you do get reaction. >> the one extreme reaction of courses hillsborough and there has never been anything equivalent. >> princess diana's death actually and for the -- a lot of newspapers, yes so there have been other occasions. >> let me just go back to the conversation with mr. brown. you said it was tense. he was angry and you said it was also a private conversation. i don't want to mislead you on this understanding but did he say anything which is relevant to this inquiry, particularly in the context of evidence we have heard that mr. murdoch? >> what particular piece of evidence? >> i'm reading an interview and i thought you could work out
3:52 pm
what i was referring to. >> i did follow mr. murdoch. i think mr. brown was very angry and i'm not sure there was anything particularly relevant to this inquiry although when mr. murdoch relayed his conversation with mr. brown, i cannot remember when that was, mr. murdoch told me the same that he told you. >> okay, well that is of some assistance but can we be clear? wended mr. murdoch relay that conversation to you? >> the reason, can't remember the timing is because obviously i have my own rather angry and intense conversations with mr. brown. previous to that conversation i had also indirectly again had similar threats made but similar
3:53 pm
reactions to similar comments made. advancing labour after 12 or 13 years. when mr. murdoch told me his conversation, it did not surprise me. >> what the to mr. murdoch tell you? >> exactly what he told the inquirer. >> in the conversation you had with mr. brown, was it well, was that issue return to or not? >> it was like i said, i feel the content was a private conversation but the tone of it and i suppose mr. brown would like to tell you about it but he was incredibly aggressive and very angry.
3:54 pm
>> it is relevant in this sense ms. brooks because i -- inquiry was questions of fine detail but you were chief executive officer of news international. you might've been fearful that if mr. brown did when in the next election, of course against the odds, he had it in his power to have the interest of the company. do you see that? >> i don't accept it. i see the question. see which part don't you accept? >> i didn't say that. >> that obvious.did not cross your -- did it? >> not at any point in the conversation with mr. brown did i think, if he wins come he will go against the commercial interest of this company. he was incredibly aggressive and angry. >> didn't necessarily flash through your mind in your utnversation but when he reflected on w your conversation it would immediately come to mind, wouldn't it? >> it didn't, no.
3:55 pm
>> at no stage in the run-up to the 2010 election, did you harbor any such concern? is that it? why not? >> because although mr. brown had saidau those things to mr. murdoch and although i have had similar insinuations from others close to mr. brown and a tone of threats about it, the fact is that it didn't occur to me that they were real or proper.upp just dismissive. >> some would say that a limited government the executive power on its mandate or to parliament in due course would be quite entitled to bring in immediate policies which are thought to be in the public interest but which
3:56 pm
nonetheless did impact on theth commercial interests of media companies. would you agree? >> well, i am sure of course it is proper for the government too debate regulation and policy on the media. of course i agree with that. >> i am just trying to explore your thinking in 2010. you have here mr. brown allegedly was on your evidence hostile to news international, and you have mr. cameron who isn't. is that correct?hat he is favorable to news international. >> he was not hostile to the "sun." >> so how would this way in your thinking?. you are the chief executivef officer now so that is somethi you should be thinking about, wouldn't you agree? >> well it depends.
3:57 pm
iee mean, gordon brown is, if yu accept the premise that gordon brown is a responsiblee politician that doesn't bring -- put personal prejudice before his policy make in decisions, if you accept that premise than the threats are pointless and should be dismissed. however, if he is not that person and he does but those things -- there is a failing ing his duty because it shouldn't be about his personal prejudice. the "sun" support of the labourn party for many years and decided to make a change so it didn't occur to me at the time that mr. brown and his colleagues would devote their time into th carrying this out.cour i
3:58 pm
>> of course it might've been part of the settlement between the "sun" and the labour party. the quid pro quo for support isy it would not intrude into areas of wolesi which could harm policy and similar organizations. did that thought ever pastor your mind? >> no.i'm go >> i will come back toin mr. cameron. there is an absence, isn't there, of text messages which might have existed? >> yes, that is correct.rec >> however far we get, you said that he texted you at a certain time, up to a dozen times a day. is that true? >> no,i thankfully.
3:59 pm
>> okay. half that time a day? >> no.n, i i have read that as well. 12 times a day is preposterous.o one would think the prime minister would have better things to do and i as chiefcute, executive, i did i. i would text mr. cameron vice versa on occasion like a lot ofo people. >> can you give us an idea of frequency? >> probably more between january 2000 january january 2010, maybe during the election campaign, maybe slightlyore 10 average, once a week. >> critical time, as you say, the election campaign march to may 2010. can you give us an idea of frequency relation to that period of? >>el may twic ..
4:00 pm
the content of any of these messages of? >> some if not the majority work to do with organization. so meeting of or arranging to speak, and some were about social location, and occasionally some would be my own personal comment on perhaps a tv debate, something like that. >> how often do you think you met with him socially during this period? let's take the first five months of 2010. ignore the record, because we -- >> at least it gives me memory, refreshed. sorry, what was the period of time the? >> let's just say the run up to the 2010th election, whichwas think on the sixth of may,
4:01 pm
2010, maybe a long about that exact day. for five months before them. >> yes. >> h oen dy i did meet with him in 2010 and me the election.hi as you can see, i have no recore of it, so i think we will have t t ab about can you rib that?t not particularly great lengths. like everybody r great lengths, like everybody i felt first of all it was a very ilt
4:02 pm
>> everybody wants to know how his tax were signed off. cau hot anything thing else? else occ them off lol, lots of love. and tell i told him it meant
4:03 pm
laugh out loud. andy didn't anymore. in the main d.c., i -- >> right. [inaudible] >> did he make, or did you make rather phone calls to his constituency home? >> no, actually. >> did you often pop around through each other's houses? >> no, i think often popping around is overstating the case spirit how would you put a? >> we occasionally met in the countryside, because i was there every weekend, and he was there in his constituency. >> it's also said, i think this is still in the times, was there a meeting -- [inaudible] ahead of which he texted each other to make sure you would not be seen together a?
4:04 pm
>> thought it might've been -- i have been to the heathrow point-to-point because my husband is chairman, and i think mr. cameron has been, do. it's in his constituency. was the question did we meet the? sorry. >> did you text each other beforehand? >> there had been many point-to-point over the years, as well as annual. was there a particular one? >> can you remember this or not? >> which? >> date has not been put on this. of course, there will be an annual event. >> where did you say you read it a? >> at times on tuesday. >> right. i did read that. the suggestion in the times that we both were at the same point-to-point, but we didn't
4:05 pm
meet, meet up. because there some reason why that was significant but it is too we did meet up. i was there very briefly, and i think, he did meet up with my husband. >> did you attend his private birthday party in october 2010? >> yes. >> i'll ask you these questions. do you have any communication with mr. cameron following the publication of "the guardian's" milly dowler store, communication would be about that story? >> i'm sure we discussed it between july '09 and july 2011. >> mr. jay asked about '09. the asked about 11. in other words, the story which came out of "the guardian"
4:06 pm
generated -- >> right. no, i don't think i did. have any direct contact. sorry. >> any other question which is a question in fact thought about asking but i will ask it now. did you discuss the phone hacking allegations against news international with mr. cameron at any time between july '09 guardian story and your departure from news international? >> yes, i did. >> now, i wouldn't want you to say anything which it bears on the current peace investigations, you understand. in other words, relates to anybody in particular in general terms can you assist us with the content of those discussions of? >> i think on occasion, you know, not very often, maybe once
4:07 pm
or twice, because of the news and because, you know, the phone hacking story was sort of a constant, it kept coming up. we would bring this up but in the most general terms. maybe in 2010 we had a more specific conversation about it, which i think it -- that's about right. >> can you tell us about that one? >> it was more, it was one i remember rather than it being in general terms of the story being around or what happened that d day. i'm just very concerned because i thought you were warning me spent i don't know what you going to say, mrs. brooks. if this is a general conversation it may relate to mr. cameron state of mind rather than any underlying factor i think you can probably tell us about it. >> i don't think it was anything
4:08 pm
he would had done in public. it was about latest develop and. and i would say to him what i say to everybody updates. we had a conversation about it. i just particularly remember that. >> i think the context must be that he was concerned that this went beyond mulcaire, is that fair, without being more specific than that? >> probably, yes. i mean, it was a general conversation with the, in late 2010th about the increase in the civil cases. >> the increase in civil cases can only be an indication that this phenomenon is not limited to mulcaire. or least that's the very strong -- are we agreed about that without being a more precise?
4:09 pm
>> i think news international has acknowledged that publicly anyway. spit can you help us with what mr. cameron said? >> a couple of years, it was, it was a general discussion about, i think he asked me what the update was. i think it'd been on the news that day and i think explain the story behind the news. nothing, no secretive information, no privileged information, just a general update. i'm sorry, i can't member the date that i don't have my record. >> you're focusing on what you told him which i'm not interested in. i'm concerned just with what he might have said, that's all spent i think he asked me. i think it'd been in the news that day. i think it was about a new civil case it cannot only asked me about it, and i responded accordingly. [inaudible] and possibly having second thoughts about that?
4:10 pm
>> no. no, not in that instance. >> on any other instance of? >> no. >> are you sure about that? >> yes. [inaudible] what these conversations were about a far from the general -- >> it's because they were very general. they weren't specific, it was particularly around the civil cases in 2010. your question was do we ever speak about it in those two years, and my answer is yes, we did. very generally, but i do remember in late 2010 having a particular perhaps more detailed conversation, because if you go back in the chronology of the phone hacking situation, that was when the civil cases were coming in and being made newsworthy. >> okay. just ask you on a different topic.
4:11 pm
you've been a close friend of -- for over 10 years, is that right? >> longer actually, but yes. >> they have a country house in oxfordshire as well, don't they? >> yes, they do. >> about how often have you been in the freud home in the country, your home in the country, or the cameron's constituency home in the company of other politicians? >> just to distill that to make it easy to dash to understand, how long i've been in david cameron so with other politicians? >> yes, or the freud's country home or your home, approximately. >> i'm pretty sure never, david cameron's home, in the countryside. i think once may be george
4:12 pm
osborne they been present at the dinner at my home, and i think the only time at elizabeth murdoch and matthew freud's house was her 40th in, a couple of years ago. >> the 40th party, we've got under tab 40, haven't we? that's the last tab which was in august 2008. stick it was actually held -- [inaudible] >> well done. [laughter] >> anyway, we can see who was there. to be fair, a range of politicians across the sound or parties, was it?
4:13 pm
>> were there no liberal democrats? no. right, yes, i can see the list. >> do you know bskyb is still a client of freud communication? >> i don't. i'm sure, i mean freud communication is a huge country. i don't know the full client list. i'm pretty sure they have a represented bskyb on a corporate level, but i'm sure they would have represented lots of other areas of sky. i do know currently, but probably. >> just ask you some general questions about -- when we are made aware that the bid would be made? >> i think before, before the public announcement, and shortly before the public announcement.
4:14 pm
>> before the general election or after? >> i think it was before. yeah, before. i just can't remember when the public announcement was. it was a shortly before. >> this is obviously a big moment for news corp. i appreciate you are -- that distinction is understood. werther not discussions by either of the murdochs about the timing of the bid? >> i played no formal role in the bskyb transaction come and certainly not the strategy of timing and all that kind of thing. i was made aware that it was on the cards, thursday, before the public announcement. 86 weeks, a couple him of month beforehand. >> it would have knock-on effects of news international as well, wouldn't it?
4:15 pm
>> well, not particularly, no, no. >> did news international had no interest in it, why we told about it and? >> it wasn't that we had no interest. but at the time i didn't come it didn't, the way it was presented to me was, i didn't think is going to have an effect on news international. >> you said that you had no formal role in the bskyb bid, and i quite understand that. because there is no reason why you should, but what about informally? i mean, here as we've been discussing you are extremely well-connected to very, very senior politicians, across the range, and that's heart of your job, as you described.
4:16 pm
wouldn't your views, how it might work out, how it might play, be extreme body, informally, not formally? >> extreme value to news corp the? >> to news corp your to your ultimate boss, tim mr. murdoch. >> it was never quite put in those terms, but i did have been in formal role, as you suggest. mainly after the formation of the come if you want to call it does for better, the anti-bskyb a lengthy because that directly in some ways brought news international into what was a news corp. transaction. because the anti-sky alliance was i think the be peacekeeper "the daily mail," the telegraph, british telecom, independent,
4:17 pm
well, everyone. everyone else audibly. and once they formed the alliance and were using their own news outlets to promote their view, and also to lobby politicians, then i suppose i probably did get involved. but again, not in video or the transactional or the strategy behind. >> no, not the deal or strategy behind it. it's the, it's perhaps the public presentation, perhaps the way in which the criticisms could be counted. perhaps using all your experience borne out of the relationships you've been careful to develop for professional reasons, and doubtfully for personal reasons, over the years? >> i think in some circumstances
4:18 pm
that may be true, but in this one it was the quasi-judicial decision. and i don't think my input or, as you say, using that, was of relevance. obviously, in light of the anti-sky bid alliance lobbying that i would waste no opportunity in putting what was probably our case on the deal, not ours news international, but ours news corp. but because of the nature of the decision i'm not sure i was in, it was of any value particularly, apart from the counter voice in a very large opposition. >> when we first made aware of the code-named rubicon, can you recall the? >> i think when i was, i was told about it here i may have
4:19 pm
heard it before but i think i was told what that was spent sure you are told about it but when was that? >> around the same time. >> a few weeks before, is that it's? >> maybe a couple months before. six to eight weeks before. >> do you know he chose that code-named? >> no, i don't come but i think it might have been james murdoch but i don't know that. >> i be someone who enjoys classical illusions. was it a codename which anybody in government knew about? >> that i don't think so. spent esther osborne or mr. hunt? >> i never heard them acknowledge that name. >> okay. if you look at the list again of the with prime ministers, and identify whether bskyb bid was
4:20 pm
discussed on any relevant occasion. the night of october 2010 there was dinner at chequers with mr. cameron. might you have raised a question on that occasion? >> no. i'm pretty sure that was the birthday party. >> that's the private party we have covered about 50 minutes ago. what about the 23rd of december, 2010 in which you've already had some evidence about? >> well, it was rather than discussed at that dinner it was mentioned. i think james murdoch's testimony put that. and i was aware it was mentioned, but it was not by any means widely discussed at that dinner. it was mentioned because it was in the news because -- resigned
4:21 pm
from that role. >> were you party to any conversations along the lines that doctor cable had acted in breach of duty, and let's go to the next one, mr. hunt? >> not necessary but clearly that was our view that we hoped that having always been put to us that be a very sad process, which it would be fair and democratic to find out that perhaps some personal prejudice had come into that decision was quite disappointing. so it would have been, it would've been along those lines, yes. no, that lease now the decision would be fair. [inaudible] you new mr. hunt, quite well, didn't you? >> not as well as others, no.
4:22 pm
on me, i had seen him occasionally but not particularly. >> even informally you were not putting out feelers to find out whether he would be on side or not? >> i think he hurt, i think he posted something on his website saying that he was quite favorable early our on in the process before he had, before the decision went to him. i'm pretty sure spent so maybe he knew it anyway. >> maybe i knew from them, but not from the correct information with mr. hunt. [inaudible] on further occasions when you may have met with mr. cameron in 2010, can you enlighten us? >> yes, no. i've been asked about it before. mr. cameron attended a boxing day, at my sister-in-law's.
4:23 pm
and i popped in on my way to another dinner, and i actually haven't got any memory it has i don't think i did even speak to him, or samantha that night. but they were deadly at my sister-in-law's house. they were definitely there for the party so i would have seen them. but not even have a conversati conversation. >> and -- [inaudible] are you sure it would not have covered the bskyb issued? >> definitely. absolutely not. i don't think it was a conversation. >> i will not come back to certain aspects of bskyb in due course, but i would like to cover general questions now about the subject matter, conversation with politicians
4:24 pm
seeking to ignore to the extent to which one can private and social matters. it's self evident your conversation with politicians were in place throughout the day, is that there? >> sometimes, yes. >> would they also embrace such as press regulation and media policy? >> very rarely. at me, there are some examples of when, i would've met with a politician particularly to discuss that, but they were very infrequent. >> the role of the bbc, was that often the subject and are sometimes the subject of conversation? >> not particularly. i mean, from my perspective, some leaders pretty pro-bbc. i think in general, wasted in the public sector or taxpayers but it was something we would address at the bbc on occasion and others, but not, i never really had a conversation with a
4:25 pm
politician about sort of top slicing the licensing and all that. >> what about issues such as self-regulation to the press and the press complaints commission, where there was ever discussed with politicians? >> again, probably not enough, but no. >> why did you say not enough speakers i wish is reflected on the fact that i couldn't remember a conversation with a politician when we did discuss pcc spent what about press ethics, was that ever the subject of conversation with politicians? >> obvious he because the last couple of years it has been the subject. >> can we go back before there because i think the last couple of years is in danger of muddying the waters. i want to speak more generally the opposite of that. >> i think after operation
4:26 pm
motorman and privacy there was a general debate going on in the media in terms of, particularly in 2003 which was pretty much until the end of use of private detectives. certainly in the way that they have been for the last decade. and i think that was something that operation motorman and price privacy would've been discussed relevant at the time. i suppose press ethics particularly came up with jack straw. i know that mr. les hinton, mr. dacre had spent some time as most of the rest of the industry discussing the data protection act. and in particular the custodial sentences confined to journalists. and i remembered that being at a conversation with politicians, and i probably only got involved in that, again, quite late off.
4:27 pm
so there was some discussion but not a great deal. >> you were friends with mr. blair and mr. blair we know often felt "the daily mail" was hostile to him and his wife. was that something that you discussed with you? >> on occasion, yes. >> quite often, perhaps? >> not quite often. it was probably more -- would discuss it with me. >> i'm not interested in private discussion but i'm interest in the private -- what was the concern being conveyed to you in this context? >> it wasn't, if you like, press ethics it was the tone. i think she read the letter was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage was quite, was quite sexist.
4:28 pm
but she's not the first high profile female to think that about the uk media. that would come up on occasion. and she sometimes felt it was quite cruel and personal about her weight and that it sort of concentrate on those things rather than in her eyes, her charity and the things she's going to do. but i'm not sure that's what you're asked me because it's not really press ethics. it's really more tone. >> it may be part of the whole picture. we know that mr. blair described the press in 2007. was that a discussion in which he had with you? >> no. although i think that post-iraq i think there was some
4:29 pm
conversations about the 24 hour media, which i think is what he was referring to, the fact that we the press have become therapy because there's always a constant need for a news story. application of 24 hour news was mentioned in terms of iraq, but not really. i was surprised when he said that. >> his speech speaks for itself but i think it went further with just a temporal point. certainly 24 hours a day, the way they behave. sometimes they act a bit wild. do you see the analogy? >> i see the analogy. >> he didn't concern any of those -- he didn't have any those concerned with you? >> no. >> dead politicians ever complain to you privately about coverage of "the sun" of them a?
4:30 pm
>> yes, occasionally. you know, there was, if people, if someone thought it was unfair, i become you asked me a question earlier about how i can learn how you but if i passed information from gordon brown to tony blair, i think it's something of that, which i said wasn't true, essentially people doing that. but on occasion they would complain. tony blair would often complain about attitude to europe and him on europe, regularly. many, many home secretaries would regularly compaign -- complaint about campaigns that we are doing in the paper, so yes, they did. i think our role was that i think i was correct because our role was those issues.
4:31 pm
>> further general questions, see if we can analyze the power play which we may or may not be an issue here. him you were very close to mr. rupert murdoch's? >> i was close to them, yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> would you also agree that politicians, for whatever reason, wanted to get close to mr. murdoch to advance their own interests, are we agreed to? >> i think that a lot of politicians wanted to put their case to mr. murdoch, advance their own interests is probably, i'm sure that most politicians have a higher view for what they were doing. >> we are not suggesting this is solely selfish, but i think we
4:32 pm
can agree more or less where we are. but this may be the more important point. in order to get close to mr. murdoch, in practice had to get close to you. would you agree with that? >> no. >> why not? >> because it is not true. >> would you agree that politicians might see that you at influence over mr. murdoch? >> no, i don't, i sorely don't think that, no. i think a day, i was an editor of a newspaper, a very large circulation newspaper with a wide readership, with an exceptional censorship placing voters but and i do believe that, like other editors in similar situations, politicians did want to get access to the editor of "the sun" and his or her team as much as possible. but i don't think that people ever thought to get to mr. murdoch they had to go
4:33 pm
through me. i don't think that is correct. >> let's see if we can break that down. politicians certainly wanted to get close to you, to have access to you, didn't they? >> yes. >> and you were someone who mr. murdoch trusted implicitly, weren't you? >> yes. i hope so. >> that was well understood by any politician who cared to look, wouldn't you agree? >> well, i think they thought we had a close working relationship, yes. >> didn't you ever examine the motives or thought processes of politicians, why they were wanting to get close to you? just even as self-indulgence, well, what's going on here, why are they trying to get close to me? >> well, i think, i think i
4:34 pm
always examined the ulterior motives of politicians. but i thought it was pretty obvious that they wanted to get, i don't know a politician that would turn down a meeting with a senior journalists from any broadcast or any newspaper. so it wasn't, it didn't need a lot of thinking that politicians wanted to get access to journalists. i mean, that's been the same case for decades, as you, as you pointed out in your opening statement in this module. >> you were in possession of the megaphone which would be facility to them, in which they have access to, logically and self-evidently, might have influence over your readership. that's the truth, is in its? >> i think politicians were very keen to put their case to me and my team at "the sun" because of
4:35 pm
the large readership of "the sun." >> did you regard it as part of your role for, perhaps it was accidental byproduct of your role, to build up friendships with politicians? >> well, i think some friendships did occur, but i think it's important to put it in the context of friendships. i mean, we all have lots of different friendships, old friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. and you know, through the decade that i was a national newspaper editor and the years i was ceo, and a 10 years i was a journalist, some friendships were made. i don't think i ever forgot i was a journalist but i don't think they forgot they were a politician. >> did you not understand that
4:36 pm
you did have a degree of personal power over politicians? >> no. again, i just didn't see it like that. i saw my role as editor of "the sun" as a very responsible one, and i enjoyed my job, and every part of that job, but particularly as i said an eyewitness statements, i enjoyed campaigns and i enjoyed, you know, bridging a gap between public opinion and public policy, taking on concerns of the readers. so i don't except in the power terms that you keep describing it as. >> your real interest is people, isn't it, mrs. brooks? you understand how human beings think and feel, don't you? >> i do like people, yes. as a journalist, do try to be empathetic otherwise no one would tell them anything.
4:37 pm
>> you understand the potential, i can put it in this way, personal outcome, how you can get people to do, might get people to do what you want, and what they're trying to do for you, don't you get any of that? >> i'm not sure quite what you mean. >> there's nothing anything sinister. i'm talking about really the power of human empathy. some people are empathetic. it's not lost on you, is it? >> well, i hope, i hope to be empathetic in life to people, yes. >> i just wonder whether you sense, or sensed, we're talking about the past and now, how, the effect you might have had on politicians, some have made have even been afraid of you, is that true?
4:38 pm
>> i, i literally, like i said, i don't see politicians as the sort of easily scared people, because most of them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated. so. >> let's see if we can just take one case study and see whether there's any validity in that case study. you remember the they can sterilization case of? >> yes. spent which actually got doctor mccanns evidence at page 57. do you have that there? and if you look at page 57, line
4:39 pm
11, question i asked was you talk about the meeting with rebekah brooks. are you on the right page of? >> they are not numbered in that way. >> they are actually. 15 at the bottom to each page has -- >> right. i've got it. thank you, sir. >> question was, you talked about the meeting with rebekah brooks which led to her view of your case, a formal review. just assistance quickly with it. can you recall when that was? i think is probably just elaborate a little bit. [inaudible] news international actually bid for the rights of the book along with a colleague. they would materialize the book. he was somewhat horrified at the prospect of that given what we been treated in the past. [inaudible] we were subsequently afraid by
4:40 pm
news international and associated to do is the book, and after much deliberation we had a couple of meetings. [inaudible] so pausing there, there's going to be sterilization in both the sunday times and "the sun," i believe, do you recall that? >> id. spent a chance -- i do. >> your chief executive officer? >> that's correct. >> the price you paid for the sterilization, do you remember it? >> i can't remember actually. hundreds of thousands of pounds. >> a million we have been told. >> no, it wasn't a million. have a million maybe. i can't, i can't remember.
4:41 pm
i may, i can -- have to wait to find out but i'm not sure. >> to paraphrase the rest of what dr. mccann's said, was that your intervention was successful in securing a review of the case. do you understand that? >> you asked if it was successful and he said it was. >> do member anything about that intervention? >> actually just go by, the reason i was involved as chief executive was because it concerned to newspapers, the sunday times and "the sun." if you like, i did the deal with harpercollins from a corporate point of view. and then left it to the two editors, to decide the different
4:42 pm
approaches. i had always gotten along very well with dr. mccann and kate mccann threw out there and credible dramatic time. and, in fact, i think day, if asked would be very positive about "the sun" actually. and in this case i thought the idea to run the campaign, again, the review of madeline's case was the right thing for "the sun" to do, and i think the sunday times did the book. so my extension at the point was the original discussion with dr. mccann. i don't think i spoke to theresa may directly, but i'm pretty sure dominik may have done. >> let's see whether we can agree or disagree of what might
4:43 pm
happen. we were discussing the arrangements with the mccanns, you asked if there's anything more they wanted, do you recall that? >> maybe, yes. >> dr. mccann said he wanted a uk review of the people? do you remember that? >> i do. >> was that all? [inaudible] >> maybe, yes. >> we have been going to a list of issues that dr. mccann and kate mccann wanted to be sure before we went forward with the sterilization. >> did you then take the matter up with downing street direct?
4:44 pm
>> no. >> did you not tell downing street that the sum is going to demand review that the prime minister should agree to the request and that sun has supported him in the last election? >> no. in fact, i didn't speak to downing street or the home secretary about this but i know dominic or tom will have spoken to them. they would have spoken directly either to number 10 or the home office. i'm not sure. probably the home office. >> this unwanted and immediate result and a lesser would be posted all over the front page from the mccanns to the prime minister asking, unless downing street a great comedy not have an? >> i think that's how "the sun" had the campaign. there was a letter, yes. >> the home secretary was told
4:45 pm
that if she agreed to review, at page one letter would not run. do you remember that? >> no, i don't. >> the secretary of state did not respond in time. you did publish the letter on the front page. do you remember that? >> i do remember "the sun" kicking off the campaign with a letter, yes. >> you don't believe there was any conversation or indeed threat to the secretary of state, is that right to? >> i'm pretty sure they would have not been a threat. you would have, we'll have to ask dominique, because as i said my involvement was to discuss the campaign in the continued search for madeleine with the mccanns, and to do the deal on the book, and, because i had done so many campaigns in the past they wanted my opinion but after that i'd left it to both editors to execute the campaign.
4:46 pm
>> what i've been told is that you then intervene personally, mrs. brooks. you told number 10 that unless the prime minister ordered the review by metropolitan police, "the sun" would put theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> no. >> is any part of that drew? >> i didn't speak to number 10, or the home office about the mccanns, and telling think after the campaign had been one. in a can of any conversation as i had, and i don't think directly to prime minister. i think it was one of his teams. >> we can find out in due course whether this is true or not, but i must repeat it to you. you just said you directly
4:47 pm
intervened with the prime minister and warned him that unless it was a review by the metropolitan police "the sun" will put their home secretary theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> i did not say to the prime minister i will put theresa may on the front page of "the sun" every day unless you give me -- i did not said the. invite any conversations with number 10 directly, they would have been particularly about that but they would've been if i'd been having a conversation "the sun" was leading a major campaign with a very strong letter on page one to start the campaign, and anyone who need me would have talked to me, any politician would have talked to me about it. but i did not say that. i don't think i said that. >> could we ask of this? were you part of a strategy that involved your paper putting
4:48 pm
pressure on the government with this sort of implied or expressed threat? >> i was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review for the mccanns, yes, but i think there were threats, is too strong. >> well, give me another was she was. what she was like during the
4:49 pm
four-year period most of it has been written by people who have talked of friends of friends of friends. they don't have the information themselveses. i happened to be there. i knew her. >> from late 1950 through 1965, former secret service agent clint hill served on the prettied detail of jacqueline kennedy. there's no goes is sip. what happened what was she was like. things she liked do. how humorous she was at times. how athletic she was and how intelligent she was. and kind of ram bunk use she was. she tried to put me to the test many times. and i did my best to meet that. >> more with clint hill on sunday night with c-span q and a. >> what i would ask is people do have information. i want them to come forward with that information either to our
4:50 pm
us a and responsible responsibility or to the dhsig. but, you know, the thought of the notion that this time of behavior is condoned or authorized is just absurd, in my opinion. i've been a eat for 29 years now. i begin my career for seven years in detroit, i've this time of behavior is condoned. i know, i never told my of employees was condoned. i feel as strongly as i did now as i did before i read that article. >> this week officials with the secret service and homeland security testified on capitol hill about agent interaction with columbian prostitutes. vid it online at the c-span
4:51 pm
video library. >> former british prrmt testifies next week between politicians. we're showing highlights of previous testimony in which mr. blair and the current prime minister david cameron have been mentioned. this in fifty minute portion, the former press secretary talks about the rise of rebekah brookes and the influence she and the murdochs had at tim downing.re >> it would be the back door point. you said media presence at thei. time and there's no particular need or desire to have the yo meeting. b made sense to avoid the door. but not transparent that somekes would say. i'll accept that, yeah. >> then you say would say. >> i'd accept that. >> then you say, slightly tongue in cheek, partly our thinking
4:52 pm
was for the rest of the media, murdoch was uniquely newer ral jurisdiction. >> it's not tongue in cheek, it's what we thought. rue better murdoch went into the building, you started a whole flurry of what's he doing there, what are they talking about? i made the point when i left in 2003, whenever i went back, i tended to go in the same door. it's just a way of avoiding attention, i guess. but i take your point. >> do you think there's something about the fact that we now make it -- we, the government, now make their links with senior proprietors much clearer, that you're going to get rather more concerned that some proprietors get rather more access than others, and that's not fair? >> i would hope that what comes out of all this is not just a greater openness and
4:53 pm
transparency that you were talking about this morning. but also perhaps a greater distance in between the two sets of people. now, i think, as i say in my statement, i think there is a real public interest in politics and other walks of life, having relationships with the media that allow them to debate, be challenged, so forth. but i think we could get to a situation where there wasn't this sense of it being rips that get -- that just get mangled. the political, the personal, the commercial. i can see why you might think they're all just interwoven. >> well, it's a topic i would certainly welcome your view on. but we'll let mr. jay take his own course. then if it's not covered we'll come back to it. >> so there's one further point that is a footnote to page 634 in one of your diaries.
4:54 pm
you describe him as rupert murdoch's economic guru, often described as rupert's representative on earth. the second point i'm sure is flippant. the first point, murdoch's economic guru. you were making a serious point there, weren't you, mr. campbell? >> i promise it's not passing it off. i didn't write all the footnotes. i think he was an economic adviser. guru, one of those words. but you know, he was close to him. he was close to him. still is, i think. >> when mr. murdoch was not around and someone was talking to mr. stilt, is there a sense you were talking to mr. murdoch in some way? >> no, i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't say that. he wasn't, as it were, a spokesman. so no, i wouldn't know that. >> tell us about mrs. brooks.
4:55 pm
obviously we've seen recently -- you say in your statement that you attended i think both her weddings -- >> no, it's only the reception of the first, the wedding of the second. and just on the first one, i was, as it were, independently friendly with the husband. >> would you describe it as a friendship or a relationship born out of circumstances? >> i think it's difficult, once you're at a certain level in politics -- in fact, again, in one of these books, tony blair and i have a discussion about this -- i think it's difficult to develop friendships with people from any walk of life, where they might feel they can get something from you. i think we were friendly, very friendly, and i liked rebekah. but i think friendship
4:56 pm
overstates it. most of the friends i have are journalists and people i used to work with when i was a journalist. but i liked her and obviously because of my job and her job, we spoke a lot. >> many people have observed and some witnesses have said these a consummate networker. is that something -- >> yeah. and i think she would see that as part of her job. >> in the late 1990s, did you assess that her star, as it were, was clearly in the ascendancy, and therefore it was important that mr. blair and the labor government become close to her? >> no, not particularly. i think she was obviously very bright. you always had a -- i had a sense very early on rupert murdoch really liked her. and i think within the rupert murdoch setup, you know, there's
4:57 pm
that sense of, as it were, bestowing his favor upon. and i think rebekah was a rising star. and i think we would have ensured that tony blair, as i say in my statement, right across the piece of all the media type, not just news international, that over time he would see most of the key people. i think that's what we did. >> on paragraph 64 of her statement she referred to being almost a constant presence in and around mr. blair's senior cabinet ministers and special advisers. would you agree with that assessment? >> i mean, look. even in all the papers, the prime minister and the government are probably the most covered people, even in the tabloids. so in a sense, what i would say is we were a constant part of her life, everybody else's life.
4:58 pm
i wouldn't overstate that. and it's -- no, i think that's -- i think that does overstate it. >> in terms of your mobile phone contact with her, we know mr. blair didn't have a mobile phone. about how often a week was it? >> that i would speak to rebekah? >> yes. >> when she was editor? some weeks none, some weeks every day. it would depend -- really would depend what was happening in the news agenda. average, probably once or twice. >> if she wanted personal access to either mr. blair or a senior cabinet minister, did she tend to organize that through you or not? >> cabinet ministers i can't speak for. in terms of tony blair, probably through me or angie hunter or sally morgan or one of the people around the prime minister. >> did she manipulate the increasingly fractious relationship between mr. brown and mr. blair? >> i don't think so, no.
4:59 pm
in fact, i think she was -- i mean, it was a very difficult part of my job. the fact that the press were writing about the difficulties in that relationship all of the time and i was having to be out there as an advocate for the government, explaining what we were trying to, do focusing on the important things, so forth. no, i don't think she did. i think -- i knew she spoke to gordon and the people who worked for him and perhaps they sometimes said things to her that they wouldn't have said to us. >> was she increasingly seen as having influence over mr. murdoch? >> i think i -- my sense always was the most influential person in terms of influence upon murdoch was rupert murdoch. was she increasingly important in the organization? yes. >> were ministers afraid of her? >> i don't --

45 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on